The Price Tag of Prior Actions

I feel like I should apologize for sullying the mass of prior posts that were nothing but college basketball with a post that's unequivocally baseball-related. On the other hand, this is the first activity here in ages, so at least it's some kind of content (even if half the people that read this blog just closed it as soon as I uttered the b-word). It's been way too quiet here; I'd like to do something about it, but quite honestly spring practice isn't worth writing about in most cases, and even though Lane Kiffin has done a fantastic job raising hell, everyone else is already kind of on top of that and I'm already kind of over that.

Anyway. The Nats were bad enough last year to be gifted with the first overall pick in the draft this year, and as it happens, there's also a pretty quality pitching prospect out there named Stephen Strasburg. He's a college kid with the kind of stuff that not only makes scouts drool, it makes them leave wet spots on their bedsheets at night. It helps that his frame is "projectable", which is supposed to mean he'll fill out in a manner that will support his further development. I just think it means the scouts think he has a nice ass. Either way, he's a big deal, the biggest of this draft class.

And then, things got funny. Peter Gammons broke the story first that Strasburg's agent Scott Boras - did I mention he already has an agent? Because he does - is asking for 6 years, $50 million. (I apologize that the link there isn't to the Gammons article; it's behind a paywall but it's there to reflect what I'm saying. If you want to read a summary of the news in random italics and bold, that site will be heaven to you.) If that seems unruly and out of control, it is; most guys get no more than 20% of that, if even that. David Price, the 1st overall pick in 2007, only pulled in $8.8 million, which is kind of Tom Boswell's point. As for me, I'm wondering what the difference is if there's no guarantee the money will be spent.

Now, I've been a fan of the erstwhile Expos for going on 15 years, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the franchise not willing to spend money. I've gone through that on more than a few occasions, and the only difference this time around is that it's a new owner (the 3rd - technically 4th, if you want to count MLB - that I've seen so far) not willing to spend cash. This time though, it's less being unwilling to spend money and more continuing a trend.

Since the Lerners took over, they've shown a continual unwillingness to spend. Those of you that are smart can figure out that this may devolve into an OMG TEH LERNERS ARE TEH CHEEP rant, but since I haven't had one of those in a while, hear me out. 2007 was home to the Replacement Pitcher Parade (which actually wasn't a bad idea, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this conversation); 2008 was the parade minus the NRIs that drove the parade. The one free agent signing you've heard of since they moved was Adam Dunn this offseason; Alfonso Soriano was a trade, and if you knew they signed Daniel Cabrera, you're either already a fan or you're lying. They've signed more than that, but those were all minor signings.

Numerous players have gone through arbitration for matters that would normally be trivial. I can immediately recall taking Felipe Lopez to arbitration over $300K (not a big deal in baseball terms); they took Shawn Hill to arbitration this year, then when he won, they cut him. They've been unwilling to commit to signing Ryan Zimmerman to a long-term deal. There are more than a few examples beyond those, but they'll do for now. Sure, they were involved in the Teixiera deal, but I was always of the suspicion that they were involved in the negotiations precisely so they could say they were willing to spend money without willing to commit to actually spending the money. They were unwilling to sign Aaron Crow out of the draft this past year - admittedly his agent may have been a bit shady, but to put this season's draft in perspective, Crow might be the 2nd best pitcher in the draft.

When the stadium finished construction in 2008, the Lerners refused to pay for some additions (change orders) to the construction above and beyond the original construction. They were late paying their own employees at a couple of points during the season. Now, I offer up that information with a realization they've had issues getting income, too. Ticket sales are abysmal considering the newness of the stadium. The TV ratings are terrible (and they don't own their network, instead leasing time from Peter Angelos' network MASN), and saying the radio ratings are terrible implies enough people listen to the radio to even get a rating. I think I might've been 5% of the listening audience.

I paint this picture to give you a feel for what's there. Given that backdrop, I can't see a reason not to draft Strasburg that has anything to do with baseball. I can't believe that the Nats would figure out a way to invest the money they'd save on a better player - because I have no reason to believe they know how to do that. A cheaper signing would be just that - a cheaper signing. Given what I said above, there's no rational way you can spin drafting Crow instead of Strasburg, so you're stuck drafting a hitter. That's not a problem necessarily, but again, if you're going to draft someone, you might want to sign him.

The one thing I'm not talking about at this point is flameout potential. Pitchers, as a general rule, have a higher percentage of flameout compared to hitters. Factoring that in, in most cases you'd want to minimize risk if skill levels are equal, meaning you'd draft the equally skilled hitter. That's not the case in this draft; there is no comparable hitter to Strasburg. That turns the equation into how much you're willing to pay to take on a higher ceiling with an increased risk. With a franchise who - for lack of better wording - you trust, you may be okay with that risk reduction. I think it's clear at this point where I stand on that.

There's a reason not to draft Strasburg - it's pretty much that previous paragraph. However, the Nats have pretty much hamstrung themselves on this particular choice. If they opt not to draft Strasburg because they're worried about his potential for flameout or injury or one of 1,200 other reasons that have to do with baseball, it'll be tough for everyone not to hear "we didn't want to shell out the cash." When you've established a culture of not willing to go the extra dollar, that's going to be the conclusion that everyone comes to when you don't go the extra dollar.

R/H/E/LOB?

I can't be the first person to notice this. Heck, I'm not even sure this means anything, but it seems like some of the Fox affiliates have added LOB to the typical R/H/E display they'll show at the end of innings. It's not all of the Fox affiliates - heck, Fox itself doesn't show it, IIRC - but some of them have.

- Actually, I have no idea if Fox is showing it; I'm too scared I'll turn it on one day and hear Tim McCarver finally implode in a black hole of suck. I don't know what Joe Buck would do. Or what that would sound like.

Since baseball moves at a glacial pace with respect to ...well, everything, it's somewhat of a surprising change. Granted, it's surprising in the sense of "hey, they did that", not "hey, they did that and it's a good thing." LOB really doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things; you don't really get a feel for how a team's performing over a week, month, year, decade, whatever by looking at their total LOB and going "well damn, they left a lot of guys on base." Every team does that, really; the only real benefit you get is seeing how many opportunities a team whiffed on in a game. That's not a bad thing given the context of the line score; after all, seeing LOB in a one-game sense should give you exactly that approach, which is a good thing. (Not to mention the line score tells you about that game; you never see a season R/H/E line score for a good reason.) However, to some degree you can extrapolate that from the R/H line. If a team's runs are way less than the hit total, they've sucked getting guys in, and if they're about equal, they've done well.

Really, you get two large things and a small thing from getting LOB.

Large Thing 1: you get a feel for how often a team has walked over the course of the game. This is a big deal for all the obvious reasons - walks are good, get a feel for pitch count (if you're into that soft of thing), etc. This also helps to eliminate some of the R/H noise; a high R/H ratio (lots of runs, relatively few hits) could either mean low LOB totals or plenty of walks making up for the baserunners.

Large Thing 2: you get a better feel for DPs. This is kind of the converse of Large Thing 1, and actually will drive you nuts if you try and figure both of them out in tandem. Realistically, you can probably assume 1-2 DPs a game and be okay 80-90% of the time. The other 10-20% of the time will kill you, though.

Small Thing 1: it'll pick up any CS. Whoop dee doo; there's normally 2 a game at max, and normally it's 0.

Really, there's a lot of noise in LOB if you're trying to figure out any kind of components from it, but it's a step in a direction networks really haven't been willing to go. What's even cooler than this is some networks are also showing OBP to go with BA - I'd argue they should be showing OBP instead of BA, but hi, I'm on the fringe, relatively speaking - but I haven't seen that often enough for it to really mean anything. If more networks start showing OBP, great; I'll probably write about that when it happens, too.

- As an aside, I've never understood why they keep track of LOB for individual players. I think it's defined as "any runner the hitter doesn't advance by a base", which ...really, that doesn't help us at all. You can't sum up everyone's individual LOB to get the team LOB - that's separate. Some guy hits a rocket at the third baseman with the bases loaded? He left three on base - unless it turned into a DP, in which case he left two, which: what? I'd be lying if that made any sense to me. Besides, unless it's the third out of the inning - and not to go all John Madden on you, but it doesn't happen that often; you can probably figure out the frequency - those runners are still on base. They're not stranded, someone else is coming up to bat!

So does this mean anything? Probably not, but it's at least some concession that the ways people normally keep track of games may not be the best. It'll probably be another decade at least before networks start showing some of the even mildly interesting stats - we might get OPS by then, but we're certainly not getting OPS+ - but every little bit helps. I'll take the minor victories.

Maintain.

I've been behind lately (and, as James pretty much came out and said a few days ago, I'm the only person covering baseball here). With the recent move, life has basically gotten in the way the last few weeks - between the job searching and the apartment searching, that's taken up a lot of my time. Still, I've been trying to update in shorter bursts than what I've done in the past, so this only tells part of the story.

The second part? There hasn't been too much that's new about the team. They have won the season series over the Orioles - and I'm sure I'd care about that more if I had lived in DC longer. As of now, all that means is we have collective bragging rights over their fans for the next year. I'd care about that, but:

- I don't know any O's fans
- I wouldn't want to brag and/or gloat with someone who's sick of Angelos

Those two things mean I'd only rub it in to O's fans that support Angelos; has anyone seen those people, ever? I figure there's two of them, and they're probably in Germany.

In addition, the O's aren't even that good. They just fired their manager, hired Andy McPhail in the front office (last job was with the Cubs, IIRC), and Angelos has promised to lay off the baseball operations. I don't believe that for a minute, and I don't think anyone else does either. Still, that doesn't solve their bigger problem of needing to actually retool and reload offensively. There's a ton of issues with the team - not the least of which involve bringing in subpar crappy veterans as continual stopgaps. Anyone who's followed the team for any length of time could tell you that, too.

So what about the Detroit series? Well, that was a pasting - but the Tigers are damn good. Was anyone surprised about that? If anything, I was floored the Nats could even be in a position to win a game. Yeah, it was a flashback to April (and if anything, I've shown I seem to blog more as long as the team's losing, which means I should've had 12 updates over that time period), but we knew that was going to happen at some point.

Now the Nats are facing Cleveland. I'll be at the game tonight - it'll be my first non-Bascik start. I'm excited; Luis Ayala is back. While that seems an odd reason to be excited, Ayala was a fantasy baseball staple for a couple of years for me, and it was a shame to see him get injured for as long as he did. Still, now he's back - and now he's inducing Travis Hafner to ground into inning-ending DPs, which I can't complain about at all. Hell, even Cristian Guzman went yard last night - anything is possible now.

So what am I expecting tonight? Well, I'm not expecting anything out of Brandon Watson. He did go 2-for-4 last night, but that means he's 2-for-7 in limited exposure. That's better than he's done in either of his other ML stints. Eh, whatever. Right now the Nats are 15-27 against teams with a record over .500. Cleveland's 12 games up. I'll connect the dots.

EDIT: in another "milestone", we're finally over 100 posts here. Never saw that coming. In addition, I'm going to update with links to a couple of other articles and websites I write for as well. Stay tuned for those.

Feast and Famine

It's tough to get an accurate read on an inconsistent team. Right now, that's the current version of the Nats - I saw them lay a giant egg on Wednesday. Of course, they follow that up by taking the Dodgers out back on Thursday (knew I should've gone to that game instead!). They follow that up by beating up on Jake Peavy the first couple of innings on Friday night and eventually prevailing with a 4-3 win in 10 innings. If you haven't been paying attention, that's pretty impressive; the Padres' bullpen doesn't give up anything. Ever, really.

And then ...well, you have the first inning of Saturday's game. I still can't (or won't) blame Speigner for that. It wasn't his fault Nook pulled a circa 1999 Andruw Jones-style play, pulling up in front of a flyball he should've caught. It wasn't his fault that Guzman on the next play thought A-Rod was behind him yelling, "HAAA!" or "MINE!" or "OMGPWNED!" or a bunch of other random things which caused him to balk at a pop fly which would've been an infield fly had he looked like he was going to, y'know, catch it. It's not his fault Zimm rushed a throw that would've gotten an out at second. Now, it is his fault he gave up all the hits after those plays, but it's not his fault he had to get six outs in one inning. Of course, none of those plays were errors, meaning that the official record blamed Speigner. It wasn't his fault.

I missed the first inning today; I should probably reword that "missed" the first inning today (air quotes!). Micah Bowie promptly ate it, as far as I can tell. Of course, the Nats did come back, only to give it back late and end the Padres series the same way they ended the Dodgers series: with a 1-2 record.

Coming up next? The Pirates, who feature a predominantly lefty rotation and no offense to speak of. I'm going to the game on Tuesday, which means that, yes - I'm seeing two Mike Bascik starts in a row.

Why'd I move here again?

Game Report from May 30th

So I finally got to RFK for my first game (yeah, I know; I didn't live in DC before now). As games go, it wasn't terribly exciting from my perspective; I really only got into the game once a group of Dodger fans 3 sections over started making a lot of noise in the top of the 9th. I don't have a problem with making noise when you're the away team - it's a great opportunity to be a prick, since ....well, everyone expects it of you - but don't wait until the 9th to cheer your team on to victory. If you're gonna be that guy, you can't be that guy only at the end of the game - you've got to be that guy from the beginning. Otherwise you're an effective bandwagoneer, and there's no fun in that.

Anyway, I'm going to handle this in the stupidest way I know how: the mock interview.

What'd you think of RFK?
It seemed to be pretty plainly designed as a football stadium. That's not a bad thing, really - it was just slightly disorienting at first. The crowds weren't too bad, and I can't really speak to the facilities or the concessions, as I didn't use either of them.

How'd the game look early?
I figured the Nats had a shot; Bascik did a good job through the first couple of innings and Derek Lowe was going to three-ball counts on almost everyone in the first two innings. Church got CS on what I think was a botched hit-and-run - Lowe threw it near Schneider's feet. Lowe was missing low and away on righties big-time through the first couple of innings, and I figured he'd compensate by throwing mid-in on righties.

And yet that didn't happen. Why?
Lowe found his groove somewhere around Nook's first AB (and, while we're at it: no balls hit out of the infield tonight for the Nookster, although Garciaparra made a good play his first AB to rob him of a double). He rattled off 11 straight ground balls or strikeouts (one of those was FLop's single through the middle).

It's frustrating watching a groundball pitcher when he's on. He'll make the opposition look foolish if he's a great groundballer - or just ineffective if he's okay at what he does. Lowe falls into the latter camp, and even though he was racking up the pitch count (brought on by many three-ball counts), he still had plenty left in the tank. That was the case here.

Meanwhile, Bascik was giving up line drives left and right. The two runs scored in the 5th were definitely legit; both Gonzo and Ethier had well-hit balls, and ....for the love of god, don't walk the pitcher. Why do the guys who suck (Pierre, the pitchers) scare the Nats?

When did it go to hell?
Thanks go to Cristian Guzman and Ray King for that.

Guzmania? Booted an easy ground ball. I was actually explaining the concept of unearned runs to my girlfriend when she asked, "So if Russell Martin hits a HR both runs are unearned, right?" ... and sure enough, that happened about a minute later. (Sadly, this was not a mojo-changing experience, but it was funny.) He also lucked the hell out with both his hits; I thought the first one should've been an error (booted grounder by Abreu + bad throw) and the second one was cheese - but the Starcraft "OMG 4 POOL" kind of way.

Ray King? 2/3 IP, 1 H, 1 BB, 1 ER. The walk? To the pitcher. Of course. Saul Rivera allowed Lowe to score.

...that about covers it.

Time Capsule: Dear Jason - Sorry!

(Editor's note: this is the final in a series of three articles I wrote last week and didn't post until now. I look forward to forgetting to update for a month.)

I was wrong. Totally, entirely, completely wrong.

After Jason Bergmann walked half the RFK concession staff in his first start of the season, I figured he was going to be embarrassing. Not just bad - completely inept. His next couple of starts weren't as jaw-droppingly bad - the control was better, and he was turning some of those walks into Ks.

His next few starts after those were better; however, I still had his first start seared into my brain and I chalked up this success to dumb luck - he's missing bats now, but that's just because everyone is willing to swing at the slop he's throwing. That won't last through the next game. Or the one after that. If not then, it'll be over next week. Meanwhile, we moved past the small sample size part of the season - he was still dealing.

By now, I had started to figure that he'd be okay in the middle of the rotation; the threat to blow up is there, but it's not as likely as I thought. (And really, who isn't a threat to blow up in the Nats' 2007 rotation?) And then .... Monday night. You've probably (edit: ...by now, definitely. From everyone else) read about it already - 7 innings of no-hit ball. I was already starting to believ, but now? He's the staff ace.

(edit: the following paragraph is hilarious in retrospective; Bergmann went on the DL on the 18th, retroactive to the 15th)

Of course, that's not entirely his doing; with both Hill and the Delicate Flower on the DL, he's as much the de facto ace as he is the de jure ace. Were they both healthy, he'd probably be the #2 guy behind Hill. I wouldn't complain if he was the ace, though.

Question for discussion: let's say both Patterson and Hill come back healthy and dealing. How do they get ordered in the rotation - and more importantly, does the Nats' staff start to sniff league average? My heart quickens at the prospect.

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

Postscript: of course, most of this is kind of irrelevant now, thanks to Bergmann's DL stint. Unfortunately, that also means the Nats' first three starters are on the DL, which: good times. Still, there's more here than I thought there was going to be at first. Right now? I'll take that.

Time Capsule: Everybody Line up to Jump over the Cliff

(Editor's note: this is the second of a series of three articles I wrote last week and didn't post until now. Still, since I put forth the effort I didn't want to have them go to waste.)

The previous post was silver lining; now it's back to the dark cloud. The good news is that in Shawn Hill's last start, he threw 5 innings of no-hit ball. The bad news is that he had to leave the game early due to elbow trouble - and a few days later he landed on the DL. Oddly enough, he went on the DL officially for a torn labrum in his non-pitching shoulder.

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

I'm reminded of a Dilbert cartoon. In it, Dilbert asks Wally why he hasn't responded to Dilbert's inquiry (we don't know what he asked about; it's not really relevant); was it just a simple oversight or something more sinister? Wally answers that it's the sinister reason; he's withholding information in an attempt to inflate his own value. (The strip's last panel shows Alice stealing Wally's computer tower behind his back, which is funny but not really important to the point at hand.)

I can't help but feel this is the case here; when it's been fairly obvious for a while now that Hill's elbow was troubling him, why is he on the DL due to labrum issues? Are the Nats hiding something hideous? It would suck if a MRI of Hill's elbow revealed the internal equivalent of Shredded Wheat - but if it does, shouldn't we know? It's not going to kill all hope for the season if that's the case. (You can't kill something that's already dead! Especially if you're not in a zombie movie.) What would suck is hearing that it's a different injury entirely at first - and then having his elbow knock him out for the season.

To be fair, I could be overreacting. Maybe it is his labrum that's really the problem. If it is, great; while he's resting that it'll give his elbow time to recover as well. At the very least it won't hurt any more than it currently does - and that's a good thing (edit: Captain Obvious to the rescue; I need to edit my work better). I'm just afraid we'll get the "there's been setbacks" articles soon. If he's done, he's done - but if he's done when you say he's not, that kills.

(Postscript: news from May 19 says Hill feels fine.)

Time Capsule: On Winning Steaks and Sweeps

(Editor's note: this is the first of a series of three articles I wrote last week and didn't post until now. Still, since I put forth the effort I didn't want to have them go to waste.)

Winning fixes a lot of problems. Actually, "fix" is probably too strong a word - "glosses over" would be a better phrase. The Nats' recent 4-game winning streak (edit: May 11-14) sure didn't fix much - but it self pretty good. There's still plenty of dark cloud to this silver lining (is at a good sign you need to go on a run to break the .333 mark?), but they'll be plenty of time to talk about that dark cloud this season. Let's focus on some positives:

- Starting pitching. Jason Bergmann and Shawn Hill had two outstanding starts - and not just in the "oh, he got us into the 7th down by 1" way; they threw a combined 12 innings of no-hit ball. Heck, even Jason Simontacchi picked up his first win in 4 yeras. Matt Chico managed to not look totally lost out there, too. I wouldn't expect this every time out, but stringing together four decent starts in a row? I'll take it.

- Good bullpen work. Absent a true closer for most of the weekend, the Nats didn't do too bad without one. Yeah, they'll have bad weeks (too much use will cause everyone to implode at some point), but when they're on they seem to do well as a group. There's enough skill and - dare I say - talent to not be completely incendiary most of the time. This weekend, they weren't.

- Clutch hitting. Where has this been all year? I can't recall actually being confident that a runner on third with less than two outs will score until this weekend. To be fair, the Nats were bound to improve to the mean eventually; it was nice to see that happen in conjunction with good pitching. (Also, I dont know if an inside-the-park HR counts as clutch, but it was still a lot of fun!)

Of course, no team is as good as they are when they're winning, and I'm not so optimistic as to think they've turned some mythical corner and will proceed to challenge .400 (or - god forbid - .500). Still, it's fun to see everything mesh together neatly every once in a while. Probably more importantly, it's good to see that this team's individual components can be better than what we've seen before - and especially what we saw from them during the last road trip (edit: April 30 - May 9). It's not perfect, but you know what? I'll take it.

Nats/Brewers: A Postscript

Good teams find ways to win games they probably shouldn't. By that standard, the Brewers are a good team; the fact they've won any games started by Dave Bush would indicate that. They're winning even with what's effectively an offensive zero at the hot corner - another sign they're good. It wouldn't be too surprising to see them continue this start through the season, and if they do - good for them. It's been hard times in Milwaukee for a while, and this season's incarnation of the Brew Crew is both young and talented.

What's the inverse of a good team? By the previous definition, it'd be a team that loses games it should win. The Nats certainly qualify here - bad pitching, bad hitting (especially with RISP), squandering what good pitching they do get, etc., ad nausem. It'd then stand to reason that when a good team faces a bad team, the good team should win going away - and that's what happened.

Take Monday night as the first example. Matt Chico had his first quality start - 7 IP, and a little high on the hits, but given his previous outings it wasn't terrible. It was probably his first good start as a Nat. Low pitch count, too - only 93 pitches through 7. Of those pitches, 92 were good - but 1 of them was a duck crushed by Geoff Jenkins for a 3-run HR. That type of result should happen; bad pitches, by their nature, should be punished. Still, it's kind of bad luck, but not so much that it's totally impossible to believe. In addition, it's only a three-run deficit - most teams can come back from that.

Unfortunately, most teams aren't the Nats (who, as previously stated, can't hit their way out of a wet paper bag). They had opportunities, in a fashion - 1st/3rd with 2 outs in the 4th (popout), a ground rule double with 2 out in the 6th (K). Their best opportunity was in the 9th, hands-down - 1st and 2nd with only one out. Granted, by that point they're probably not going to win anyway... but a swinging K and a flyout won't bring the runners home. Not great. With unexpectedly good pitching from the back end of your rotation, you have to take advantage of it... and the Nats didn't on Monday.

So what about Tuesday? The offense clicked, kind of - they scored in the first inning for the first time in ...well, a while. They scored four runs total - most in the later innings, but it's still four runs. (Why yes, David Bush was starting for the Brewers; how'd you know?) However, Jason Simontacchi couldn't get it together, allowing 4 runs in only 6 IP, leaving Winston Abreu (welcome to the big leagues!) to give up the 5th and ultimately deciding run. Blown opportunites this game? Let's check it out!
- 2nd inning: 1st and 2nd, nobody out (DP / 6-3)
So that wasn't really the problem. This time, it can just be blamed on bad pitching and questionable defense (read: Robert Fick, who's another issue entirely).

What about Wednesday? Well, we can revisit the mantra of crummy hitting (5 hits) if we want. Lack of clutch hitting? 2nd / 3rd with 2 outs in the 2nd (K) kind of counts - they got there on a WP. 1st and 2nd with one out in 6th (pop, flyout) was the only other opportunity; you have to get hits first to fail in the clutch! So, what was the problem here? This time, blame the relievers - the combination of Jesus Colome and Micah Bowie in particular. 1-1 going into the bottom of the 8th, 3-1 Brewers coming out. Why? Just your usual 1B / 1B / 1B / WP two-run inning (which are normally the most painful; they're not hitting the ball hard, but it's just where the defenders aren't).

So: three games, three losses in three different ways. The Nats are doomed, right? Fortunately, that's not quite the case (but it's close!). There is some talent, according to the technical definition of the term. That'll mean there's a little light at the end of the tunnel that may not be an oncoming train. The Nats won't continue to be as abysmal as they have been with RISP (...right?). At the very least, statistical variation means they'll win some games - there will be some combinatino of good pitching, decent hitting, and roughly passable defense. They can all occur separately - as they did last week - but they'll happen on the same night sometimes, too. Let's just hope it happens another 32 times the rest of the season.

6 thoughts over the last 2 games

1: The Jason Bergmann bubble popped on Friday. It was a fun ride while it lasted, and this time around it wasn't due to what I was afraid of happening (bad control). He was just hit hard - 8 H in only 6 IP. K/BB ratio wasn't bad (2:1), and I don't remember offhand how much of the outing could be blamed on bad D (my guess: probably one of the hits, maybe two). Still, it's at least a theoretical sign of concern / encouragement; I've been worried for a while that if/when Bergmann would implode, it'd be of the Oliver Perez "I'm walking everyone in the stadium" variety. This wasn't that - it was just getting beat up. That, in it of itself, is expected.

2: John Patterson left the game early yesterday. Surprised? I'm not - but he was sidelined by a bicep problem. Pick your joke (increasing levels of cynicism):
A - at least it wasn't his forearm
B - he's always been injured
C - he strained it giving himself a hug to feel better
D - this does nothing to fix his poor broken soul
Bottom line, this would hurt in theory, but since he's effectively - at best - the #3 starter now anyway, whatever. In this rotation, #3 = replacement level.

3: The Jesus Flores "two guys are" Watch(ing) continues. 3-for-4 on Friday, and if Schenider continues to bite it, I'll be curious to see if Bodes can either spin him off for something that could possibly be useful.

If you've ever played sim baseball, this next paragraph will make sense - if not, hang on. The catching situation is like having a 1-star starting C and a 2-star prospect in the big leagues. The prospect might be useful, but the starter sure as hell isn't. Flip the starter to see what you can get - if it's some middling crap middle reliever, so be it, but at least he's cheaper. Put the prospect in and see what happens; if you're not in a pennant race, who cares? You were getting a zero there anyway, it might as well be a cheaper zero.

(Kasten would be so proud!)

4: Ryan Langerhans watch: 0-3 with 2 Ks, first PH off the bench on Friday and Saturday and defensive replacement in LF (for Kasto). Trade back! Maybe they can talk Langerhans into hitting righty.

5: Three boos for Levale Speigner walking in the bases loaded yesterday. Not that he was really going to do anything useful anyway, but walking in a run is probably the most disheartening situation to be in as a fan - and walking in three in a row? Kind of inexcusable. Of course, once the runs started to be earned for him he got out of the inning - hope he gets some kind of present for knocking Patterson's ERA up (and his arbitration number down!).

6: Zimm hasn't had a bad last couple of games: 4-for-8 with a couple of walks. One double both games, with a SB yesterday (whee) to boot. I'm thinking that with an increase in walks, Zimm's value will go back up; I don't have the time at the moment to go delve into his past history to see if that's actually a useful indicator or not, but it makes intuitive sense. His OBP is only .309 so far, but that's well above the .236 (OBP Mendoza?) he was showing a couple of weeks ago.

Spinning the Wheels

First off, my apologies for not posting here in a while; I was out of town and out of touch for a few days this past weekend, and the last couple of days have been lost to studying for finals. Updates will be semi-sporadic for a few days as finals continue and graduation stuff kicks in. (We'll address late May when we get there.)

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, it's gotten around the wires and blogs by now, but Chris Snelling has been traded for Ryan Langerhans, who ended up on the A's. Mariners fans can now immolate themselves when Snelling does well against them, and Braves fans can now do the same when Langerhans ....nah, who am I kidding. My initial reaction to the deal was somewhere solidly in the "WTF?" territory; that can be blamed on my perceptions of Snelling (not quite as rose-colored as USS Mariner, but probably not too connected with reality either) and Langerhans (bad). Admittedly, I didn't know much about Langerhans beyond he was one of those multiple Braves' OFs last year - I didn't even know he was pawned off to the A's.

Now that I've had a chance to process the deal, I'm coming up with ...well, treading water. Maybe it's a step forward, but it's not a giant step forward - maybe it's just a small step back. I don't know. Langerhans brings multi-positional defense and (depending on who you talk to) either a slightly worse bat than Snelling's or one approximately equal. In addition, he's under contract for another year than Snelling was. In it of itself, that's not bad - and if he can do something to keep one of the two Black Holes of Suck out of the lineup, then I can't blame him too much for that. (He can play CF; it remains to be seen if he will.)

Of course, we don't know how Langerhans will be used. If he's used like Snelling-plus, then I really can't complain; he wouldn't be actively sapping Church or Kearns of ABs beyond what they'd need for a rest period, he'd be a good late-inning defender (one that actually would be a defensive improvement), and he ...well, unless they teach him to switch hit, he won't be a righty bat off the bench. Can't win them all, I guess. In addition, if he's platooning in center then that will - as implied earlier - keep Logan out of the game, which has to be a good thing.

On the other hand, this isn't a gamebreaking trade. This looks like the equivalent of changing a font style. You can do it - and some people may like it a little more, which is good, right? - but it doesn't change the content. It won't turn the page you're designing into a masterpiece, and it won't turn this team into a contender. That's okay - if you think the team's going to compete this year, you're nuts anyway. However, making too many of these trades just seems like Bodes is shuffling the deck. One? Sure. Two? Eh, maybe. But unless this is going somewhere, it's not really that worth it.

Keep an Eye Out

Another day, another loss. There's nothing really that hopeful in the loss, although let's see what we can dig up that may be useful.

- John Patterson at least had movement on his pitches. Like so many of his starts so far, his velocity started out strong and then decreased as the game wore on. There's nothing inherently bad about that - most pitchers will lose a few MPH off their fastball between the 1st and the 6th innings - but the magnitude that Patterson was losing it was impressive. Yesterday was a little better; his velocity didn't start really dropping off until about 70-75 pitches in (somewhere around Howard's IBB), which is a good start. His stats weren't helped by the blowtorch job that Micah Bowie did, though. Now if Patterson can start hitting his spots, he might actually start living up to the promise he has.

- Ryan Zimmerman is at least beginning to hit the ball better now; so far it's right at fielders - and the GIDP last night was positively Vidro-esque - but at some point he's going to stop aiming them directly at the second baseman. Just a heads-up if he breaks out in the next week or so.

- The defense, it is horrid. I mean, it's not something we didn't expect to some degree (and I'm going to regret saying this when Logan and Guz come back, I think), but this is impressive. It's not all errors and wild throws, either. It's more positioning and bad breaks; I'll cut Belliard some slack mainly because he's basically a runaway train out there and the reason he's playing rover is because he'd make Vidro look like he has plus range if he was on the grass. I don't know if this will change at all if/when the injured players come back; my guess is it'll improve, if only because players will be at their natural position(s). I don't know if it'll help the boneheaded plays - and how much it will hurt the offense is something else to explore entirely, at a later date - but ...well, it can't hurt. If the stupidity is cut down, then the team will improve; it's that simple.

Like last week, don't expect many posts from now until Monday. The smart money is on "zero" for the number of posts between now and then, although if I get computer access that may change.

Channeling the Time Machine

The Nats had a good shot of winning tonight; Jason Bergmann put together another good outing, and although he still scares the piss out of me, this is three good outings in a row. By the numbers, that's three quality starts, meaning that Shawn Hill might actually have to move over on the "unsupported quality starts" bench.

Still, the most shocking part about Bergmann's start wasn't that it was good, it was that he left with a 3-2 lead after the 6th. That's really all that you can ask for from these starters, right? Throw fairly well, hope the team puts up a few runs and then let the bullpen close it out. We're not going to see many complete games from these guys, and we're not going to see many blowouts, eihter. The pitchers lack the stamina, and the bats lack the punch. As a result, we're basically left with what happened last night; a relatively close game going into the top of the 7th that was - at this point - still winnable.

Unfortunately, the Nats jumped into the time machine - way back to a couple of weeks ago - and put together some bad innings in the 7th and 8th. Before we go any further, this wasn't Acta's fault; he can't be blamed for the complete ineffectiveness of the relievers, and he certainly can't be blamed for throws that the cutoff man decided to not get. (Well, he can't be blamed for them now. If these problems persist .... maybe.)

So we're 3-2 in the top of the 7th. FLop singled to lead off, Belliard (who's starting to make me feel stupid about the whole "he'll be great out of the 2-hole" line of thought I had two weeks ago) grounded to second to advance Lopez. However, Ryan Zimmerman - who might just want to change his name to Snakebit at this point - lined directly to Chase Utley, who wasn't playing where second basemen usually play but more where he would play if he was trying to catch someone stealing. All the same, he caught the liner and doubled off FLop, end of inning.

Enter Saul Rivera in the bottom of the 7th, who promptly gave up the lead with a HR to Aaron Rowand. After a Ruiz single and an Abraham Nunez sacrifice (which: it's a tie game, Manuel must have had no confidence in Madson's ability to get down a sac), exit Saul Rivera and enter Micah Bowie. Bowie did get out of the 7th with no problems, but now it's tied.

Top of the 8th: nothing to see here. Church singles to left.

Bottom of the 8th, Bowie is back in. It's not a bad play here, really: Utley and Howard - the first two guys Bowie would face - are both lefties. Hope for the best with the matchup advantage (since Manuel's not PHing for them) and then let Rauch come in. It's a good idea in theory, and it'd probably work decently. However, Bowie fired a pitch almost behind Utley (hit him) and struck out Howard. Not unforgiveably terrible. Anyway, exit Bowie and enter Jon Rauch.

Ruach hasn't had much luck lately; he blew up just a few days ago, and now he came in with 1 on and 1 out in a game that - had he gotten out of the inning unscathed - might've lasted a while. Again. He didn't have it tonight either - at least not after the first part of the Burrell AB (where he got ahead 0-2). He walked Burrell on 4 straight, and then Wes Helms launched a crud missle into center. You know those hits, the kind of dumpers that drive you nuts when they happen to your team because the ball is absolutely in no-man's land, and that guy is coming around to score no matter what. It was a crud missile.

The Yahoo! play-by-play reads as follows for this: - W. Helms singled to center, C. Utley scored, P. Burrell to second. However, that doesn't quite describe what happened: Ryan Church then turned around and threw to third - again, not a bad idea: it stops Burrell from advancing. However, the throw missed the cutoff man and missed Zimmerman too. Burrell scored, and Helms was in position to trot home on a Carlos Ruiz single. 6-3, end of game (effectively).

So ...who's at fault, right? I can't really blame Rivera too much, Bowie basically did his job, and Rauch's just not going to have it some nights. Church's throw didn't help matters, but if it's on-target maybe we only have a 5-3 loss. It wasn't a game-breaker. Maybe you can blame the lack of hitting with RISP, but Zimm's double play was more a result of great D than a giant clunker of a hit.

More than anything else, it's these kind of losses that hurt. The Nats had a clear shot to win the game ... and yet, they couldn't. Three relievers in a row just got unlucky, and an errant throw killed what little shot the Nats had to win at that point. It's frustrating; we know after the last week that there is the talent to win games like this, but we can't all the time. On an intrinsic level, I know this ...and yet I hope I'm wrong.

Still, we'll see if today will turn out any different than yesterday. In all the ways that entails.

Masochism 101: Looking at the Nats' Staff

I don't know why I'm even posting this; as the title suggests, I must enjoy pain. Still, since I'm here and yesterday was an off day, I feel like something should be said, even if it's largely cursory. (Alternate explanation: I feel bad for not posting anything last weekend, or this upcoming weekend, as I'll be out of town yet again.) With that in mind, let's bust out the old grading scale, and our criteria are as follows:

1 - effectiveness (60%). This includes not allowing runners to score - and, failing that, at least stranding them.
2 - durability (20%). In short, what's the likelihood of these guys being stand-ins in those old Timex commercials where the guy smacks the hell out of a fly on his Timex watch?
3 - length of appearance (20%). For the love of god, keep the bullpen from killing itself.

John Patterson (D-)
He'd get an F, but at least he's struck out some guys. Well, relatively speaking. He avoids a F mainly based on his singularly-realized potential and the possibility he may actually be injured. (No, I'm not letting that go.) Average innings per start: 4.5. Good times.

Shawn Hill (B+)
Story of the season so far and the de facto ace - he will be the ace once Patterson gets injured. Not a whole lot of press outside of the Nats' circles, but that will change. Two quality starts in a row so far, and he's got better odds than most of continuing that streak.

Jason Bergmann (C-)
I really don't know what to make of him. He's durable for a Nats' pitcher, and he stands at least a passing chance of going 6 ... but I'd be lying if he doesn't spend the entire outing scaring the hell out of me. If you believe that the Bodes talk straightened him out, then good for you; I'd place it more on Randy St. Claire myself. Fittingly enough, this grade could bounce either way. Another bad outing puts him somewhere in the D range and another good outing puts it at C+ or so. Still scared, though.

Matt Chico (D)
He gets a small pass over Patterson because we expected him to suck. He's also thrown (.1) more innings. Still looks kind of lost out there, though.

Jerome Williams (F)
Human gas can! I'm surprised, really; I figured he'd be good for a 5.something ERA. It's still possible, but he may be doing that in Columbus.

So the question now is this: who else is better than these guys? I have no idea. Check Columbus, maybe; Billy Traber? Tim Redding? Joel Hanrahan? Maybe. Would they be any better than Williams, Chico, or (god forbid) Patterson? Probably not too much so, but I doubt they could be that much worse.

Better Late than Never: a Phillies Preview

Current season series record: 1-1 (last series: 1-1 ... duh.)

Probable starters for the series can be found here.

Well, so much for not being last in the NL. Bombing the last two in Florida will do that, and moreso when the team looks like it broke out the early-season style beatdowns. Still, the Phils aren't the Marlins (and does that sentence look weird to type); they haven't demonstrated a consistent ability to be ...well, good. Granted, it's not like the Marlins are a bunch of world-beaters, but the Phils have yet to get it going - hopefully that'll hold off for a few days!

There's not a ton here that's different from what it was last week; Charlie Manuel is still insane, Brett Myers is still not starting, Cole Hamels isn't injured (yet?). The Phils do throw a couple of lefties in the series: Moyer on Tuesday and Hamels on Thursday. In between is the slated start of Shawn Hill (more on that in a minute) and Jon Lieber.

Hill's start is only slated; there's no guarantee yet he'll be able to make it, thanks to a bad baserunning call this weekend. That in turn resulted in a strained forearm to his non-pitching arm (you can breathe again); this is a fantastic summary of what happened. If he goes, then the Nats have a great shot of winning ...well, one. I'm not sure they don't get swept here. It doesn't hurt that he goes against new rotation addition Jon Lieber.

So ...yeah. Sweep? Maybe. I don't quite think it's going to be that bad, but I think it could get ugly quickly. To say I was confident in the Nats' chances at this point would be pretty direct folly. I don't have much reason for that beyond reading about the ugly performances this weekend - the less said about them, the better - but I'm not sold they'll immediately rebound, either. Let's hope I'm wrong.

Quick Hit

Can't post very long, but I'm wondering if Scott Olsen's healthy. It seems surprising that a guy who's as good a pitcher as he is isn't doing better this season. I'm doubly surprised that the not-very-good-against-lefites Nats offense was able to put 10 hits on him in 5 innings.

Kudos to the bullpen, although I'm also a little concerned about the extra-innings workload. There's not a ton of talent there - we know that - but again, there's not a ton of talent in the rotation either, and there's no guarantee that the rotation will pitch a ton of 6-7 inning starts. At least Shawn Hill had his second quality start this season; I'm ready to anoint him the staff ace, if nobody else is. Oddly, this time the breakdown in the bullpen was due to Rauch and Cordero; we've seen this before from Cordero, but Rauch ...well, that's a little odd. My guess / hope is it's just a momentary blip.

Still, we got our win; if we can get another one in the next two games, that's just gravy at this point.

White Rabbit Alert

So - yeah, once again I'm late, once again I missed yesterday's game. Fortunately, it would seem yesterday's starter - the one, the only John Patterson - missed it too. Presumably his eyelids were stopped up. Either way, he was good for 4 innings and 80 pitches of suspect ball with suspect movement, and ...eh, I'll write more about him later. For now, this sums up my feelings on it.

Anyway, we're facing the Marlins this weekend - not the first time either. We all remember the "performance" in the first series of the season, as much as we'd rather not. Blame the craptastic performances across the board - bad pitching, bad hitting, bad injuries, you name it. The series was bailed out from total uselessness thanks to Jorge Julio, who's since on gone on the DL with acute suckitis. Now the Nats travel to Florida - why should it be any better?

For starters, the team is better; the pitching can pass for mediocre on a good day, and the hitting is starting to show signs of life. True, Zimmerman has yet to really come to life, but that won't last. Lopez is starting to hit, and Snelling is fine as an 8 hitter in a full-time role.

Hill's the Nats' best starter and he's in the series. Chico and Williams are both works in progress at this point, but Chico has at least faced the Marlins this season. He actually didn't do badly; blame the defense. It'll be interesting to see if he does any better this time around, especially given his recent struggles.

Honestly, I'm not expecting much. There's a reason for the Nats to win each game (Hill on Friday, Chico's defense waking up, Mitre kind of sucks), but 1-2 may be the best we can hope for. I hope I'm wrong, and not in an "hey, we were outscored 123-0" kind of way.

With a Little Bit of Hope

Well. This won't be the first opportunity this season the Nats have for a split (thanks, rainouts!), but it will be the first opportunity they have to win both games of a 2-game series. If you would've told me the first win would've come in a 13-inning affair that had the kind of bullpen line where D'Angelo Jimenez was the next pitcher in line, I'm not sure I would have believed you.

Once again, I can't really speak much to the game quality; I had to leave shortly after Eaton's double off the wall, which means - among other things - I totally missed the comeback and lead in the bottom of the 2nd and 3rd. I think this puts the Nats at 3-1 at games I can't follow. Good news: I can't follow today's game, either.

Bergmann was ...well, Bergmann. When he's on, he's - at best - effectively wild. Other people have said this already, but he's starting to remind me of Oliver Perez, just without the talent. This latest start gives him 14 Ks in the last 12.1 innings against only 5 walks, which is good. However, since Jason Voorhees made the first start, that not-bad ratio is actually 15 K / 11 BB, which blows. If we get more Bergmann starts, then there's a shot of respectability. Personally, I kind of doubt it; I expect Voorhees to show up shortly.

Saul Rivera picked up a hold while allowing 2 hits in 0.0 IP; good job, Saul! Way to allow those inherited runners to score!

Aside from that, there are a few things to take away from the game:
- Zimm can still play D; he turned a fantastic DP in the 12th that ...well, it probably didn't kill a rally, but since he was the pivot man, being able to whip it across the diamond to nail Howard for the second part of the DP was impressive. Now, factor in that he was playing basically out of position and that throw came from second with a guy bearing down on him - I'm impressed. He went 1-for-6, but that play alone will get a pass.
- It was All Hands Must Go night in the bullpen; everyone got some work. Bad performers of the night were the aforementioned Saul Rivera and Chad Cordero. Does he have the yips early? Hopefully this is just a phase. Still, the fact that the bullpen threw 5 scoreless innings (although Jesus Colome "scattered" a hit and 3 walks in 1.2 IP) shouldn't be overlooked.
- Brian Schneider hit a HR! He went 2-for-6 with 4 LOB, not great - but he's coming around, maybe. Maybe?
- Converted reliever Brett Myers allowed 2 hits in one inning with a K. No word if he uncorked a "wild pitch" and hit Charlie Manuel in the head.

First pitch at 1:05 today; staff "ace" John Patterson goes against Jamie Moyer. I couldn't advocate skipping work, but Gameday Audio is dirt cheap if you want to go that route.

I'm a Bad Fan, Vol. 1,482

So - if you totally revamp your blog to talking about the Nats, and then the first thing you do after doing that is miss the first game, ....well, you'd be me. It's not entirely my fault; I had to stay late at work. By the time work was done, so was the game, and the Braves walked away with a 6-4 win.

This was a hybrid of both the incredibly early-season struggles the Nats had (let's fall behind before we come up to bat!) and the slightly-more-recent ability to generate offense (the winning run was on base as late as the 7th inning). By the time the first was over, the Braves had sent 8 guys to the plate and Jerome Williams had pitched 36 pitches, and I'm left to believe that the McCann walk was of the unintentional intentional variety.

After that, it was more of the Nats' early-season woes; Smoltz sent down the side in order the first two innings before Chris Snelling worked out a walk in the third, coming around to score thanks to a sacrifice and FLop's infield single + throwing error.

Fast-forward to the bottom of the 7th (current score: 5-2). Once again, another rally was started by a Schneider non-hit followed by Snelling coming up big, and FLop contributing another RBI. It's good to see this from FLop, who's had a rough go of it early on. Still, two runs scored, and with Kearns at second, Zimm struck out and Meathook flied out. End of rally, end of game; Rafael Soriano and Bob Wickman closed the door. Another day, another game.

Aside from that, some other minor notes:
- FLop finally seems to be warming up; he's 6 for his last 14 with a stolen base (and a CS).
- Snelling continues his semi-intermittent hitting pace (5 for his last 10 if you ignore Monday's game). As bats in the number 8 hole go, you could do a lot worse.
- Scheider continued his odd pattern of getting critical non-hits, igniting a rally in the 7th. A double-switch going in the top of the 7th turned Schnieder into the de facto leadoff hitter, knocking Robert Fick out of the game.
- Speaking of Fick ... in the 6 spot? I'm a big fan of Acta, but I don't get it. Eh, he'll get a pass on this from me for now.


In other news, the Kory Casto experiement is on hold; he's been sent back down to Columbus. Not too surprising; as I mentioned before, Snelling has done a damn fine job hitting that far down in the order, and I'm personally wondering when he'd move up to hit 7th (or 6th!). Casto needs the everyday PT, which he wasn't going to get with the big club.

On the other hand, this is going to create some interesting debate as to who should start when Logan comes back from the DL with Snelling and Church hitting well.

The cost of "Veteran Presense" - when it's not really needed.

There's a long-held belief in baseball that the idea of having veteran presence on a team is inherently valuable. It makes sense in theory - after all, if you have a group of talented youngsters, it can at worst be useful to bring in a guy that's been there before. Whether he's acting as an example for the kids or telling them what they should be doing, there's at least a moderately proveable correlation here.

However, like any idea when carried to extremes, it quickly falls apart. Case in point? Ramon Ortiz signing with the Twins for $3.1 million. There's a fine line between "bringing in helpful veterans" and "squeleching the youngsters". The Twins, for those unfamiliar with the organization, have a pretty good group of young pitching. There's the obvious one (Johan Santana), the even younger lefty (Francisco Liriano), and there's a host of young righties (Boof Bonser, Matt Garza, Scott Baker) that I can all recall off the top of my head. That's enough for a very, very young rotation - and I can understand wanting a guy who's had more than, oh, 25 big-league starts in there. That's doubly true given Liriano's likelihood of missing the 2007 season with surger and rehab.

However, the Twins already have Carlos Silva. Silva's not great - his calling card is excellent control, and over the course of his career he's been about average (101 ERA+). Again, that's not great, but when you have the talent that the Twins do, you would prefer it if the vets largely stay out of the way, right? That's what Silva does - and he's not a great player, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm saying that. He's either average or slightly below average (if you like your starters to strike people out, he's not your guy). So if we replace Liriano with Silva, now we have a rotation that looks something like:

Santana, Bonser, Silva, Garza, Baker

That's not bad. It's young, cheap, and effective. When you're operating on a shoestring budget, it's as good as gold to find that kind of rotation.

So now we add Ramon Ortiz to the mix. What's he offer? Really, not a whole hell of a lot. Think a worse version of Silva (93 ERA+) that will eat about 190 innings below league average. Great. That's useful if you're going to be looking at an innings shortage. However, the Twins aren't going to need that - they have at least 5 pitchers (already mentioned), plus a few other arms in AAA that they could call up who would be much cheaper than Ortiz. They'd probably be less effective, but whatever.

Basically, what it boils down to is Scott Baker v. Ramon Ortiz. Now, I'll admit I'm biased here for two reasons:

1 - I saw Scott Baker shut down the Durham Bulls for 8 1/3 innings two years ago, so that's my memory there.
2 - I saw Ramon Ortiz suck last year for the Nats.

So, let's compare. Scott Baker has a career ERA+ of 86 - worse than Ortiz, and Baker sucked last year (ERA+ of 70). However, Ortiz wasn't much better last year (ERA+ of 79 in a ton more innings) - and when coupled with 2005, that's about 350 innings of 81 ERA+ ball, give or take. That's worth about $2.7 million more than Baker? Never mind that Ortiz is now past the peak age for a pitcher and will probably decline from hideous to god-awful here in the next couple of years - plus he's losing the RFK effect. Baker, meanwhile, will be 25 this year (still well in his growth phase). Why not give him the chance? At worst, he'll do what he did last year - which wasn't much worse than Ortiz's effort - but the odds seem to speak against that. At the worst, he's cheaper, which leaves more room to sign Santana to a long-term extension. I don't think any Twin fan would argue with that.

Anyway, the Twins' rotation now looks something like:

Santana, Bonser, Silva, Ortiz, Garza

And they're looking at signing Bruce Chen. If they do, you can repeat the above argument but put Matt Garza's name in place of Baker's. Let's hear it for Terry Ryan.