SB Nation DC: All Posts by Chris Needhamhttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/48897/dc-fave.png2010-09-23T11:25:49-04:00https://dc.sbnation.com/authors/chris-needham/rss2010-09-23T11:25:49-04:002010-09-23T11:25:49-04:00Stan Kasten's Departure Hurts The Nationals, Both On And Off The Field
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>Stan Kasten takes a lot of heat from NatsTown, but make no mistake: him leaving the Nationals makes the organization worse off in many different ways.</p> <p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092203309.html">Tom Boswell's column</a> in today's Washington Post revealed something that's been hinted at occasionally: Stan Kasten may be leaving the Nats.<br><br>I can hear you know. "Good Riddance!" Or "Go back to Philly or Atlanta, you snake-oil salesman!" Hey, I might've even yelled one or two of those myself. There's a lot to dislike about him, especially now that Jim Bowden's departure has left him as the team's Carnival-Barker-in-Chief.<br><br>But that's also sorta missing the point. The opening day Philly invasion was a tone-deaf act ... borderline unforgivable. But the question isn't about that. It's whether or not the Nats would be better off without him.<br><br>The answer, if you detach yourself from the opening day-fueled rage, is that they'd definitely be worse off, especially if Boswell's account of his actions -- and moderating influence -- are correct.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/550538/132765_nationals_draft_baseball.jpg"><img src="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/550538/132765_nationals_draft_baseball_medium.jpg" class="photo" alt="132765_nationals_draft_baseball_medium"></a></p>
<p>Stan Kasten appears to have been a bit of a check against the Lerners penny, dime, and Sacajawea coin-pinching ways. Boswell's article hints that Kasten has privately encouraged the team to spend more, while making public statements to defend their actions -- sometimes taking the heat for them.<br><br>First, Kasten's comments on what the team should do:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"This is the time to act," he said this week. "We are close. This is how it felt in Atlanta just before we turned it around. Once you've laid the groundwork and improved the farm system, you need to add some pieces. That's where we are now."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And Boswell hints that Kasten has had similar feelings in the past:</p>
<blockquote>At the core of Kasten's frustration is the Nats' inability to "brand" the franchise during a unique window with a new ballpark on tap ...
<p>"The <a href="https://www.twinkietown.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Twins</a> did it the right way in their new park this year," one Nats insider said. "They raised payroll [from $65 million in '09 to $98 million] to make sure they put a good team on the field their first season. That's what Stan recommended. It didn't happen."<br>Instead, the Nats moved to <a href="https://www.federalbaseball.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Nationals</a> Park with a payroll $9 million less than what it was in 2006, when MLB ran the team.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the other objections many have with Kasten (sometimes me, too) is how he doesn't really give a rat's sweet patoot about hardcore baseball fans. He's aiming his efforts at the casual fan -- the family that comes twice a year or the college bros who just want a place to drink and stare at chicks. Real fans, dressed head to butt to toe in team garb don't matter; they'll come no matter what. They're the suckers -- or so it seems that way under Kasten.<br><br>But part of that is Kasten being hyper-responsive to fans, and ensuring that everyone -- no matter how many pieces of flair they're wearing -- is taken care of. You call or write, he responds. Usually with a scary signature ("STAN"), which makes it seem like he's all business.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/550541/132776_nationals_draft_baseball.jpg"><img src="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/550541/132776_nationals_draft_baseball_medium.jpg" class="photo" alt="132776_nationals_draft_baseball_medium"></a></p>
<p>Some anecdotes:</p>
<ul>
<li><span style="line-height: 16px; font-size: 12px;">During the first year the team was here, one of my friends was waiting in one of RFK Stadium's interminable lines. He noticed a few workers just standing around, not doing anything. Cheesed off, he approached one to ask for some help, was yelled at, and shoved. He complained to the team about that. Stan made it right with a set of Diamond Club Tickets.</span></li>
<li><span style="line-height: 16px; font-size: 12px;">Earlier this year, I went with a small group of friends to the aborted <span>Stephen Strasburg</span> start. It was one of the team's T-shirt promotion days, and my friend was at the park at around 5 p.m. He came away empty-handed, which is a common refrain for most fans on those days. Sometimes it seems like they never hand any out. In the first inning, half-jokingly, my friend sent an email about it to Stan. A few minutes later, he got a reply asking where we were all seated. By the fifth inning, Stan's assistant had delivered four t-shirts to our row. Stan didn't know who the heck we were. Stan certainly didn't know that I was in the group -- had he known, perhaps they wouldn't have come! But that's indicative of the mindset: personal touch can help grow a fan base.</span></li>
</ul>
<p>Over these last few years, the Nats have been a trainwreck on and off the field. Stan Kasten deserves some of the blame for that. But it's not hard to envision a scenario that's much worse without him. </p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/washington-nationals/2010/9/23/1706066/stan-kasten-nationals-leaving-team-presidentChris Needham2010-09-16T08:56:11-04:002010-09-16T08:56:11-04:00Is Jim Riggleman On The Hot Seat?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>Jim Riggleman's Nats have been floundering. Is Interim Jim on the hot seat? Should he be?</p> <p>With the team sputtering and stumbling down the stretch, Nats manager Jim Riggleman held <a href="http://www.masnsports.com/the_goessling_game/2010/09/riggleman-nats-coaches-hold-team-meeting.html">yet another team meeting</a> this week, letting his players know that they needed to play a bit harder. By some estimates, it was the 459th team meeting he's held this season. And as you'd expect, they're becoming increasingly less effective.</p>
<p>Riggleman seemed aware of this. He didn't just speak to the players himself, but he <a href="http://www.federalbaseball.com/2010/9/12/1684608/washington-nationals-nats-skipper">had his coaches do it</a> as well. He told reporters, "sometimes when the same person keeps giving the message it starts to fall on deaf ears, so I had all the coaches address the team."</p>
<p>And therein lays the problem (well, one of ‘em) with ol' Interim Jim. He's basically admitting that the team has tuned him out. They've heard his spiel once, twice, maybe fourteen times before. And now they're not listening.</p>
<p>Riggleman signed a two-year contract last offseason, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/04/AR2010040402745.html">but it's even weaker than that.</a> Beyond his meager $600,000 salary this year, there is a $100,000 buyout for 2012. If the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.federalbaseball.com/">Nationals</a> wanted to go in a different direction, it wouldn't take much dough at all.</p>
<p>The team meetings are one example of how it seems like Riggleman doesn't know how to handle the team. His recent spat with <span>Nyjer Morgan</span> -- wherein he ripped Mr. Plush to the media before taking the player aside -- didn't paint Riggles in the best of light. With Morgan flailing on and off the field, does Riggleman's stubborn insistence to pencil his name in the lineup every day send the wrong message to other players on the team?</p>
<p>Riggleman seemingly goes about his job as if he's the ultimate influence for every single game. If there were an award for Overmanager of the Year, he'd be the landslide winner. The guy double switches early, often, and late just because that's something a manager CAN do. And it's often done with little thought as to whether a manager SHOULD do it. The best example of that was earlier this year when he took <span>Mike Morse</span> out of a game on a double switch in a game where Morse already had two home runs.</p>
<p>Sometimes it seems like he's taken lessons from Mr. Burns on the Simpsons who once pinch-hit for Darryl Strawberry with Homer simply to gain a platoon advantage.</p>
<p>After this latest meeting, Riggleman explained to reporters that it was body language and energy that he was most concerned with. (Maybe he, like GM Mike Rizzo, didn't like their aura?)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"You cannot go to the level that teams such the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.gaslampball.com/">Padres</a>, <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/">Giants</a>, <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.pinstripealley.com/">Yankees</a>, Tampa Bay - those teams who are going to be right there at the end - you cannot be in the same class with them until you have everybody on board pulling the same way, putting personal statistics behind them and milestones behind them and all that nonsense. Until every body is pulling the same direction, getting after it every day, it's not going to show up in the win column."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's a pretty distressing quote, and it's actually hiding and covering the best defense the Nats should have for keeping him around: the lack of talent on the team.</p>
<p>Does he really think that the difference between the Nats and the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.draysbay.com/">Rays</a> is the energy level? They're winning because they're "pulling the same way?" I dunno. I sort of figured that the reason the Rays won was because, well, they have damn good players.</p>
<p>But that quote shows Riggleman's view on managing: if he can just pull the right levers and push the right buttons, things are going to click. It's as if he thinks he could enter his 1992 Ford Taurus into a NASCAR race, and win it, so long as he had the right attitude and steered it properly.</p>
<p>Does he really believe that if he gives the right speech, and makes the right double-switch, that the team's going to start winning?</p>
<p>And as an aside, which of his players are putting personal stats ahead of the team? And, if you think about it, isn't having players want to get lots of hits, mash lots of homers, and drive in a bunch of runs, basically a good thing?</p>
<p>It doesn't seem that Jim Riggleman is on the hot seat. And given that the team's likely to struggle next season without <span>Stephen Strasburg</span>, bringing in a new manager to absorb a season of losing might not make the most sense. But if the team DID want to go in a different direction, it might not be a bad thing. And it certainly wouldn't be an expensive proposition.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/9/16/1692274/jim-riggleman-nationals-manager-hot-seat-firedChris Needham2010-09-02T08:53:41-04:002010-09-02T08:53:41-04:00Were The Nationals Really Fair To Rob Dibble?
<figure>
<img alt="dibble" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tYsqOJgZJj5fMkX8FgDwfQ8Ti7o=/0x279:661x720/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/427968/53222810.jpg" />
<figcaption>dibble</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rob Dibble is gone, and the MASN broadcasts will be better. But did he get a raw deal?</p> <p>Soon after taking the job as MASN's analyst for Nats games, <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/2009/05/qa_with_masns_rob_dibble.html">Rob Dibble gave an interview to the Baltimore Sun</a>. He told the paper what he thought he needed to bring to the job:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I have to be factually correct. I try to be as informative as possible and be as fair and honest as possible." </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He didn't meet that standard, and yesterday, the team dumped him.</p>
<p>Let's get the caveats out of the way first.</p>
<p>Rob Dibble is a terrible announcer. He's a worse analyst. That he's no longer doing Nats games means that they're automatically better broadcasts, no matter who his replacement. (<a href="http://www.princeofpetworth.com/2010/08/dear-pop-noise-intimidation-outside-chinatown-metro-station/">Even if his replacement were The Mosquito</a>)</p>
<p>His in-your-face, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHOMIL_6x7k">Poochie-like</a>, all-attitude style was a refreshing change from the droll style of Don Sutton. But as Mr. Dibble's former employer was wont to say, "he just went too far."</p>
<p>He's the master of after-the-fact analysis. If the result of the play was good, it was Niiiiiiiice. If the result of the play was bad, it was bad. Good things never happened on bad plays, nor vice versa.</p>
<p>He was the fan in the booth. The loud, obnoxious guy sitting one row behind and two seats over whose comments are entertaining for the first two innings, but by the sixth inning and his sixth beer, you just wanna strangle. The team did well, he cheered or grunted. They did poorly, he ripped those bums.</p>
<p>For some people watching at home, that had a real strong appeal. He's one of us!</p>
<p>For others? Ugh. Cretinous meatheadism? Pass.</p>
<p>So today was a very, very, very, very good day, and plenty of Nats fans grunted in celebration.</p>
<p><a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/430379/53222736.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="53222736_medium" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/430379/53222736_medium.jpg"></a> <br id="1283431888648"></p>
<p>But I feel somewhat conflicted. Dibble stinks, but isn't what the team did to him kind of, well, cheap?</p>
<p>The team didn't hire him because they thought they were getting a master analyst. They hired him because of his energy (<a href="http://www.masnsports.com/2009/01/masn-names-rob-dibble-as-new-c.html">the press release announcing his signing</a> anticipates his "high energy debut") and because of his mouth. They wanted someone with attitude. They wanted someone "in your face". They wanted someone who wouldn't be afraid to share an opinion.</p>
<p>And that's what they got.</p>
<p>So why'd they dump him for being all those things?</p>
<p>If I brought a rabid grizzly bear to my next dinner party, and the bear went on a rampage, mauling everyone in sight, one could hardly be angry at the bear. It's in his nature. Just as it's in Rob Dibble's nature to stick his foot in his mouth from saying something "in your face."</p>
<p>When you hire someone to "tell it like it is" you can't get upset when he does. Even if his definition of "it is" turns out to be different than the way Stephen Strasburg's doctor would say it is.</p>
<p><a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/23/1638443/rob-dibble-stephen-strasburg-comments-bowden-radio">Dibble's comments on Strasburg</a>, where he urged the pitcher to "suck it up", were stupid even before we knew what had become of the ligaments in Strasburg's elbow. But is stupidity a firing offense? Is the team's management so thin-skinned that some goofus' comments about one of their players means they'd fire him? Perhaps.</p>
<p>On the surface, it seems like a pretty silly move for the team, and there'd probably be a little more of an outcry were Dibble not such an odious personality. The ends, as it turns out, sometimes justify the means.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/534393/163479_obama_baseball.jpg"><img alt="163479_obama_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/534393/163479_obama_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>It does make me wonder, however, if there's more to the story. What, if any, role does his XM radio gig have to play with this? Dibble's comments were made on his "other" job, and he later indicated that that's something he'd never say on MASN. Was the team upset with that? Did they feel it was hurting his preparation or accountability with the MASN broadcasts?</p>
<p>What role did his comments about the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/08/rob_dibble_amazed_by_women_at.html">yacking women behind the plate</a> have? What about his apology then, which sounded good, if you took out the parts where he persecuted his perceived enemies?</p>
<p>Did the team ask him to apologize for the Strasburg comments -- to the pitcher or to the team? If they did, is it possible that he'd have refused?</p>
<p>There are lots of possibilities and unanswered questions in there ... many of which we'll likely never have answers to.</p>
<p>But by his own "factually correct", "informative", and "fair" standard, Dibble failed. So even if he got a raw deal with the specific reasons for the dumping, it was very much deserved for other reasons.</p>
<p>Now you'll have to provide your own grunting.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/9/2/1664728/rob-dibble-fired-nationals-commentatorChris Needham2010-08-26T10:27:28-04:002010-08-26T10:27:28-04:00Despite Being Out Of Contention, September Games Matter For The Nationals
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CvAJRDu8_e7s3-RZfPbi5F2BtWg=/0x194:466x505/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/photo_images/1042072/GYI0061277114.jpg" />
<figcaption>Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Individual baseball games don't matter, but they do shape a season. What happens in these next few games determines whether the Nationals' 2010 season is terrible or just plain ol' bad.</p> <p>With <a href="http://www.misschatter.com/janf/index.php/2010/08/24/dib-dib-dibble-dee-do/">the whole Rob Dibble brouhaha swirling,</a> one of the refrains spouted by his defenders is that the obsession with the tattooed meathead is a distraction. What's going on between the lines, they say, is far more important than what's being said 300 feet above it. It's a valid point.</p>
<p>But at the same time, as has been the case for the last half-decade, the season feels too damn long. The Nats are slogging along, playing listless ball in games that mean pretty much zippo. The games don't matter for anything other than the sheer, pure joy of having a baseball game on TV or the radio as the unbearably hot summer nights turn cooler.</p>
<p>Baseball's a funny game in that it's far too easy to get wrapped up in individual games as if they matter. Sure, <span>Jason Marquis</span> was amazing last night, but it doesn't mean he hasn't been bad for most of the season. As we experience each day, we rise and fall with those emotions. Yet, it's only when you step back, looking at the season as a whole, putting things into perspective that you can really get a feel for how things went.</p>
<p>So with September looming, these next few weeks are going to decide what shape this season has. Each games means little, yet they add up to a lot. And maybe it's the recent run of poor performance, but it feels like this season's about to slip away.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/529484/187867_diamondbacks_nationals_baseball.jpg"><img alt="187867_diamondbacks_nationals_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/529484/187867_diamondbacks_nationals_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>Start with the ace. <span>Stephen Strasburg</span>'s set to have a <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/23/1638295/stephen-strasburg-disabled-list-elbow-injury-mike-rizzo-nationals">second MRI</a> on his aching forearm. The ghost of former ace <span>John Patterson</span> looms -- "Wet MRI" and "flexor tendon" ring alarm bells in any Nats' fans head. If the worst happens, and doctors take a ligament from his leg or ankle to be installed in his arm, it's a lost season ... or more.</p>
<p>Look at the first baseman. Everyone loves <span>Adam Dunn</span>'s power. <a href="http://www.masnsports.com/the_goessling_game/2010/08/dunns-defense-still-an-issue-for-nationals.html">But plenty don't like his defense</a>. And, despite both sides talking about how much they want to have a deal done, he's still unsigned with free agency looming. Might some team throw $70 million over five years to turn him into one of the league's most productive Designated Hitters?</p>
<p>How about the left fielder? <span>Josh Willingham</span>'s solid season is lost to a knee injury that destroyed his would-be career year. He's coming back. But he'll be a year older. He'll be a bunch more expensive. He'll have battled back from knee and back injuries over the last few years. Is that really a core guy?</p>
<p>And in center? Is <span>Nyjer Morgan</span> the answer? How will <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/25/1650837/nyjer-morgan-suspended-nationals-throwing-ball-seven-games">his seven-game suspension</a> affect Mike "Character Counts" Rizzo? Not to mention his poor play, his indifferent defense or <a href="http://www.nationalsenquirer.com/2010/05/nyjer-morgans-temper-tantrum.html">his on-field tantrum</a>?</p>
<p>What about on the farm? Who's ready to contribute? The team dipped down into the farm and brought up <span>Justin Maxwell</span> and (wait for it) <span>Kevin Mench</span>. Where's the extra help going to come from?</p>
<p>There are a lot of dark clouds swirling now after a season that started off with faint notions of competing. Back in April, it really looked like they were on the verge of making a leap forward.</p>
<p>Now? It's not hard to see it all teetering down next year. Strasbug? Out. Dunn? In Chicago. Willingham? Hobbling around the outfield lamely. Morgan? On the bench. And in a few years, <span>Ryan Zimmerman</span>'s going to be in pinstripes.</p>
<p>Yes, that's a pessimistic take. But that's where the current shape of the season leads us. Down. Down. Down.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/529493/135549_red_sox_nationals_baseball.jpg"><img alt="135549_red_sox_nationals_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/529493/135549_red_sox_nationals_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>But that's also why these next few weeks are so critical. With Zimmermann back, and a seemingly rejuvenated Marquis, will the pitching stabilize? Will Roger Bernadina and <span>Ian Desmond</span> ink their names in next year's lineups with strong performances?</p>
<p>If the September answers to those questions are "yes," then the pessimistic take on the season goes away. And if they're "no," we're looking at another 100 losses and yet another lost season -- our fifth in a row.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/26/1651322/nationals-september-rob-dibble-stephen-strasburg-adam-dunnChris Needham2010-08-19T08:10:56-04:002010-08-19T08:10:56-04:00The Nationals' Draft Was Good, And It Could Potentially Be Great
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>Off the field, it was a pretty good week to be a Nationals fan. We'll have to wait five or six years to see if it was a great one.</p> <p>It's been a pretty good week to be a Nats fan -- at least if you've managed to keep yourself away from the TV and from looking at the boxscores. Sure, the games have stunk, but off the field, just about everything went right.</p>
<p>The team did what it needed to do with the draft. Not only did they <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/6/7/1505795/mlb-draft-2010-nationals-bryce-harper">sign top pick Bryce Harper</a>, they did so at a price that didn't change the salary scale of the draft. But aside from the flash and sizzle of No. 1 overall, the team did what it needed to do with its other picks. They signed 25 of their top 26 picks, which is incredible. And they did so by being aggressive, paying big money when they needed to to lure a player or two away from a commitment to college.</p>
<p>Notably, they gave $799,999 to Robbie Ray, their 12th round pick, which blew the slot recommendation away. Ray, a left-handed starter from Tennessee, fell in the draft because teams were confident that he was going to the University of Arkansas. The Nats took him anyway, and found a way to get him signed. They got early-round talent with a low draft pick for nothing more than a little bit of cash.</p>
<p>They did the same with their 4th-round pick, AJ Cole. Cole, a beastly 6-foot-5 righty from a high school in Florida, had committed to the University of Miami. As with Ray, teams shied away given that strong commitment, even though most draft experts figured he had first-round talent. The Nats scooped him up, and threw $2 million at him. They gave their fourth-rounder a contract worthy of a first-rounder, and he took it. Again, early-round talent with a low pick. And for nothing more than some cash.</p>
<p>Unlike past years, the team went the extra step to get these players in and done. The lip service they payed to the so-called "Plan!" finally became more than mere whispers. Having the players signed is great, but the fact that the team's ownership, it seems, finally gets it is more important. They finally understand what they need to do to compete. Every team wants to win. Every team has their version of the plan. It isn't about saying you have this goal; it's about going out there and being better than 29 other teams at it. And in this case, they were.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/525151/145075_nationals_gm_baseball.jpg"><img alt="145075_nationals_gm_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/525151/145075_nationals_gm_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>But despite the success of this week, Nats fans shouldn't get too excited. Or they should at least temper their enthusiasm. The draft, as we know, is a bit of a gamble. And despite the successes of <span>Ryan Zimmerman</span> and <span>Stephen Strasburg</span>, it's no sure thing.</p>
<p>Look a few drafts back when the Nats were the toast of baseball for their smart drafting and signing of Jack McGeary and <span>Josh Smoker</span>. Even before his Tommy John surgery, McGeary was struggling. Josh Smoker's 7-plus ERA at Single-A indicate how far away he is, too.</p>
<p>The heralded guys don't always get it done. Injury, attrition, stagnation ... there can be lots of reasons drafted players never make it.</p>
<p>But that's why Mike Rizzo's favorite word is so important. If you hear him ramble on about players, he won't go too long before he mentioned "inventory." It's as if he's a quartermaster of an old Civil War unit and that his pitchers are hard tack. Hearing him describe humans as basically items to be accounted for can be a bit jarring, but in the abstract it can make sense.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.federalbaseball.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Nationals</a> need a big stock of things because so much can go wrong. If, say, one player out of five makes it, then if you want three to make it to the majors, you need 15 players. As it is, of those 25 selected, if five of them make the majors, it's been a wildly successful draft.</p>
<p>The more players you have under control, the greater your odds of one of two of them really surprising the heck out of you and breaking out. But the larger that number, the larger the number of failures, too.</p>
<p>So it's terrific seeing the Nats signed 25 out of 26. But that doesn't guarantee anything.</p>
<p>All in all, it was a good week. We'll have to wait five or six years to know if it was a great one.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/19/1631198/bryce-harper-nationals-draft-robbie-rayChris Needham2010-08-13T10:04:18-04:002010-08-13T10:04:18-04:00Nationals Ring Of Honor Is A Missed Opportunity
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>The Nationals' Ring of Honor is a great idea with poor execution.</p> <p>When Gary Carter wiped a tear off Andre Dawson's cheek at the ceremony which revealed the <a href="https://www.federalbaseball.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Nationals</a>' Ring of Honor, there wasn't a dry eye among the 12 or 14 people who came to see one of the six or seven greatest Montreal Expos of all time.</p>
<p>All ribbing aside, the idea behind the Ring of Honor is a terrific one. Baseball -- sometimes perhaps to its detriment -- is stuck in the past. And any links and connections that it builds are great. Most of us don't have a grandpa who can remember seeing Lou Gehrig play, but we sure like the idea that there could be a grandfather somewhere who could. It's nostalgia, often contrived. But it warms the cockles of the ol ‘heart.</p>
<p>As they say, though, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe the Ring of Honor isn't one of Dante's rings of hell, but the design of it, if you really think about it, is pretty poor.</p>
<p>The criteria the Nationals uses (in consultation with the Hall of Fame, which just reeks of pointless appeals to authority) is that the player has to be in the Hall of Fame, and has to have spent a non-trivial amount of time with the franchise or in D.C.</p>
<p>So think about this. When's the first modern Washington National going in?</p>
<p>You've gotta figure that <span>Ryan Zimmerman</span> has another 15 years of playing -- last 13 with the <a href="https://www.pinstripealley.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Yankees</a>! Add in a few years of waiting for induction, and we're talking 2033 before Zimmerman would be inducted into the Ring.</p>
<p>That's a bit restrictive, no?</p>
<p>Take it a step further. What other players, period, are going to be honored in the Ring between now and then, owing to the requirements that they're Hall of Famers? <span>Tim Raines</span> should get in. Maybe <span>Pedro Martinez</span> will be inducted. Did <span>Randy Johnson</span> play for Montreal enough? Vlad Guerrero probably makes it to the Hall. That's what? Four, maybe five players over the next 20 to 30 years? Seems like that's a system that's been designed poorly.</p>
<p>The other thing that's a bit silly with it is the value of the honor. If the criteria is that the player has to have been inducted into the Hall, isn't that already enough of an honor? I'm sure the players would like a little extra recognition, but the Ring isn't really conferring anything -- status especially -- on a player that they don't really have. It's duplicitive of an honor they already have.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/521650/178843_nationals_orioles_baseball.jpg"><img alt="178843_nationals_orioles_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/521650/178843_nationals_orioles_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>For a better approach, look to our neighbors to the north. The <a href="https://www.camdenchat.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Orioles</a> do it the right way. There, the team's fan club, <a href="http://www.orioleadvocates.org/orioleshalloffame.html">the Orioles Advocates</a>, hosts a yearly ballot, seeking input from long-time fans and media members. The team inducts two or three people every year -- a mix of players, managers, and front office members. They get a little on-field ceremony, and a small plaque in the stadium as a remembrance.</p>
<p>It's a much better approach, and a meaningful honor for those players and people who weren't Hall of Famers, but who provided the city with great memories.</p>
<p>If the Nats had that kind of system, Frank Howard would be honored. He never will be with the current system. If the Nats had that kind of system, we wouldn't be asking questions about Frank Robinson; we know he'd be going in soon. There'd be plaques for Ed Yost, Joe Judge, Mickey Vernon, Ted Williams, Dutch Leonard -- not to mention <span>Livan Hernandez</span>. Heck, maybe even Tim Wallach deserves some recognition.</p>
<p>There are tens and tens of players who the Nats should honor -- players who made amazing contributions to D.C. baseball, who excelled, and who brought smiles to you, your dad, and maybe even your grandpa.</p>
<p>Baseball is built on nostalgia, and the Nats are missing out on a chance to capitalize on it.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/13/1620737/nationals-ring-of-honor-andre-dawson-expos-missed-opportunityChris Needham2010-08-10T08:15:05-04:002010-08-10T08:15:05-04:00Expos Who? Nationals Should Honor D.C. First
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/F2x7AlC_yHH6CnlyIfGAsSRHA4M=/3x0:596x395/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/photo_images/981329/GYI0061146288.jpg" />
<figcaption>Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>D.C. has a long, rich baseball tradition, and while the Nats shouldn't ignore the Expos, they should do more to acknowledge the city's baseball history.</p> <p>At about 6:50 tonight, before a crowd eager to see Stephen Strasburg pitch, an old ballplayer with even older knees will hobble out to the plate after a long-winded speech by Phil Wood. The Nats are honoring one of the team's all-time greats, Hall-of-Famer Andre Dawson, for his contributions to the team. The crowd of 35,000 will sit there, wildly applauding their hero for the many, many contributions he made to the Nats, and the tens upon hundreds of big hits he had for Washington's fans. Like the time that he ... um ... well.</p>
<p>See, that's the thing. Dawson's recognition is igniting one of those debates that's never really been settled. Should the Nats honor their direct lineage? Or should they honor their figurative fathers? Is Steve Rogers the greatest pitcher in Washington Nationals history? Yes. At least if you're a literalist.</p>
<p>There are no Montreal Expos anymore. Kaput. Neither are there Seattle Pilots. Or St. Louis Browns. Or Boston Bees. Or Cleveland Infants. Or any of about a bazillion-and-one former baseball teams.</p>
<p>Off to the dustbin of history they should go. Lets read about ‘em in books. The Nationals aren't the Expos. The Orioles aren't the Browns. The Brewers aren't the Pilots. Even if they're all related.</p>
<p>That's not to say that the Nats shouldn't recognize their direct lineage in some way. Dawson's a figure clearly worth saluting. And the Expos experience is important to what the Nats are today. But the Expos numbers shouldn't be retired. And the Nats shouldn't be going out of their way to commemorate the Expos. Neither I nor any D.C. fan, for example, want a 30th anniversary celebration of the Blue Monday Expos next season. Hey, parents! Bring the kids out to see Larry Parrish!</p>
<p>The Nats should have a display somewhere in the stadium commemorating the Expos. They had some great seasons and some great players (Tim Raines better make the Hall!). But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't a team with a long history, and this wouldn't have to be a huge display. Just put up a few paragraphs, with some photos of the greats of the franchise. Tim Wallach (no, this isn't a joke) shouldn't be completely forgotten.</p>
<p>But the reality is that D.C. fans don't care. And, really, they shouldn't. D.C.'s situation is unique. This is a team that had major league baseball for decades. It's a city that has a tradition of baseball, and a long history with many great players and some significant Hall-of-Famers.</p>
<p>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<a style="color: #c8181d !important; text-decoration: underline; background-color: transparent;" href="http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/518918/175511_nationals_strasburg_baseball.jpg"><img style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; margin-top: 5px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: auto; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #cccccc;" alt="175511_nationals_strasburg_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/518918/175511_nationals_strasburg_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>We shouldn't leave it up to the Minnesota Twins to honor Walter Johnson. He's ours, not some walleye fisherman's. Even if those records are technically the Twins franchise's, we don't have to subscribe to it. Those records don't belong to the Pohlad family; they belong to us.</p>
<p>And they belong to anyone who's ever rooted for a terrible baseball team that's played here in D.C.</p>
<p>Walter Johnson's our best player, not Tim Raines. Bert Blyleven is the greatest Twins' arm, not The Big Train. Some stupid little technicality isn't going to change that.</p>
<p>Maybe the approach the Nats are taking is the best one. Their official records have always included the Expos records, but also the Washington baseball ones. And their new ring of honor strikes a balance, recognizing Expos alongside the greats who played for other franchises based here in D.C.</p>
<p>In fact, I'm thrilled that they've expanded that honor to the Negro Leagues team which was mostly based here in the District, the Homestead Grays. Though they played a bunch of games in Pittsburgh, D.C. was their home away from home. Buck Leonard, Josh Gibson, Ray Brown, Cum Posey, Jud Wilson, and Ray Brown -- even more so than Raines, Dawson or Gary Carter -- deserve to be honored and remembered. Their story is, perhaps, more important than that of those Expos, and it's a great thing that the Nats recognize their contributions to D.C. baseball.</p>
<p>D.C. has a long, rich baseball tradition, even if it's not necessarily a winning one. And that's what should be celebrated and commemorated. Give a nod to the Expos, but a firm handshake -- heck, a big, warm embrace -- to the Senators, versions I and II.</p>
<p>Fans should respectfully applaud Dawson tomorrow. He's a terrific player. But then they should cheer like hell for Strasburg, and wonder when the heck the team's actually going to get around to retiring Frank Howard's number.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/8/10/1614744/nationals-ring-of-honor-expos-senators-honorChris Needham2010-07-29T09:21:16-04:002010-07-29T09:21:16-04:00The Nationals' Second-Half Pitching Cavalry
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>Nationals fans assumed that the second half of the season would be better than the first because of all the additional arms being added to the rotation. But the team's hot start, among other things, are giving a different shape to the season.</p> <p>Nats fans have gotten used to a certain shape to the season thanks to the way the last few seasons have gone. Each of those last few years, the team has played dead for the first two or three months before getting hot (well, if playing .500ish is hot) for the last two months or so.</p>
<p>That finishing kick gives the few people left a little bit of hope that the next season's going to be the one where they finally take the leap. And, well, it hasn't happened yet.</p>
<p>This season was a bit different. The team started out hot, so much so, that reasonable people were contemplating what the team would need to add to make a run for the Wild Card. At the time, the answer seemed like <span>Roy Oswalt</span>. Now, thanks to hindsight, I'm not sure that adding everything valuable on the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/teams/HOU" class="sbn-auto-link">Astros</a> would help.</p>
<p>The team's played relatively poorly for a few months now, and fans are kind of hoping for that second-half kick. And what's fueled that hope was the prospect of the pitchers on the horizon.</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/509780/gyi0061117650.jpg"><img alt="Gyi0061117650_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/509780/gyi0061117650_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>Everyone assumed that this year would follow that same pattern. <span>Livan Hernandez</span>, for example, was signed to just be a placeholder -- someone to eat 120 or so innings in the first few months, and who could be cast aside once <span>Jordan Zimmermann</span> was healthy.</p>
<p>Well, as we've seen, Livan's not getting cast aside any time soon.</p>
<p>The team's rotation was built with a second-half surge in mind. Come September, it was supposed to be <span>Stephen Strasburg</span>, Zimmermann, <span>Chien-Ming Wang</span>, <span>Jason Marquis</span> and <span>Ross Detwiler</span>.</p>
<p>Well, now, how many of them can we count on?</p>
<p>Strasburg's likely to be shut down soon. Detwiler pitched ineffectively after the team rushed him back from injury rehab to make an emergency start. (And truthfully, it's not like he was great before). Zimmermann's on his way back, and will probably be up in a few weeks.</p>
<p>The same goes for Marquis. He's a bit of an interesting case in that he was signed not because he's a great pitcher, but because the team thought they could pencil him in for 180 innings -- 180 innings they wouldn't have to give to <span>Luis Atilano</span> or one of their other mediocre 5th starter types. As it turned out, he wasn't healthy, pitched terribly, and will finally be coming back to the majors this week. Will he be healthy enough to give some stability to the back half of the rotation? Can the Nats count on him to fill that Livan-like role: the guy who gives them six innings each start, without getting completely bombed?</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/509786/166041_brewers_nationals_baseball.jpg"><img alt="166041_brewers_nationals_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/509786/166041_brewers_nationals_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>And what about Wang? When the team signed him, they trumpeted the fact that they controlled him for a few years thanks to his relatively low service time. But what does it matter if he's never on the mound? His expected time of arrival consistently gets pushed back further and further into the future.</p>
<p>So the question is, can they really count on him? Wang is a lot like <span>John Lannan</span>. Both keep the ball on the ground. Neither strikes anyone out. They walk the fine line of where the so-so quality of their stuff meets good command, keeping hitters off balance with junk. But as we saw with Lannan this year, if they're not quite healthy and they lost a tiny bit of stuff, they're going to get murdered.</p>
<p>Is it reasonable to expect Wang, who's strength was his ability to kill worms with his sinker, to come back all the way considering how long this rehab was, and the difficulty of shoulder surgery? The team was envisioning a number two starter. Should they?</p>
<p><a href="http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/509789/158095_wang_nationals_baseball.jpg"><img alt="158095_wang_nationals_baseball_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/509789/158095_wang_nationals_baseball_medium.jpg"></a></p>
<p>We've heard that the team's loaded with pitching. Well, in that they have arms that can throw the ball to the plate, it's a true statement. Nobody said that they're loaded with effective pitching.</p>
<p>More or less, what you see now is what we've got. And if you subtract Livan's terrific season -- ‘cause seriously, you don't think he's gonna do that again next year, do you? -- there's not necessarily a lot there. And if Strasburg's hurt, that's doubly so.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/29/1594101/nats-pitching-stephen-strasburg-chien-ming-wangChris Needham2010-07-23T08:52:16-04:002010-07-23T08:52:16-04:00The Value Of Not Trading Adam Dunn
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>The Nats believe they're close to competing, whether or not you do. And that likely means that Adam Dunn isn't going anywhere.</p> <p>In the next week, you're going to see a whole lot of horse puckey about how the Nats NEED to do this. Or they NEED to do that. These next few days are going to be <a href="http://www.csnwashington.com/07/22/10/Kushner-Adam-Dunn-To-Trade-Or-Not-To-Tra/landing_v3.html?blockID=275635&feedID=6458">a referendum on general manager Mike Rizzo</a>.</p>
<p>As if his legacy is going to be determined on whether or not he can find a home for <span>Adam Dunn</span> -- instead of other things like not signing international free agents. {<a href="http://natsfarm.com/2010/07/20/nats-sign-cuban-defector/">checks transaction log</a>} Wait. Scratch that.</p>
<p>Whether or not to trade Adam Dunn is a tough decision, with a whole lot of moving parts. It can't be boiled down to a simple "must" or "must not."</p>
<p>It's clear that Rizzo's been <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/06/mike_rizzo_on_the_trading_dead.html">interested in keeping him around</a>. The team has been negotiating with his agent, trying to find a fair deal on an extension. <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/19/1576719/adam-dunn-trade-rumor-nationals-new-contract">The scuttlebutt last week</a> was that Dunn was looking for something in the range of four years, $60 million. I hope that Rizzo was enough of a professional to stifle the laughter before saying "no thanks."</p>
<p>There are a few different end-games here. Let's assume that the team doesn't trade him. What are the advantages then?</p>
<p>For one, they keep Dunn and <a href="http://www.masnsports.com/byron_kerr/2010/07/zimmerman-wants-dunn-and-hammer-to-stay-put.html">Ryan Zimmerman happy</a>. A happy Zimmerman is a non-jaded, non-damn-I-can't-wait-to-sign-with-the-<a href="http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/teams/NYY" class="sbn-auto-link">Yankees</a> kind of player. Second, a happy Dunn and a happy Zimmerman might mean that Dunn's asking price comes down a smidgen, especially in the few months between now and November, when he'd be able to file for free agency. Third, were they to trade Dunn, especially after he's talked about liking it here and not really wanting to be traded, they'd have probably napalmed those bridges, meaning he wouldn't come back.</p>
<p>So not trading Dunn increases the chances that he's wearing the Curly W next season.</p>
<p>Not trading him also means there's a possibility of arbitration. If the Nats offered arbitration to Dunn, the worst-case scenario would be something like a one-year, $16 million deal. I'd do that in a heartbeat. The problem with Dunn isn't what he's going to do in 2011, but what he might be doing in 2014 -- pining for the fjords, perhaps?</p>
<p>If they offer and he accepts, great. If they offer and he walks, great, too. ‘Cause when some other lowly team signs Dunn, the Nats net two extra draft picks (likely both among the top 35 or so picks). There's not much downside there, is there?</p>
<p>So if Rizzo does trade him, he's losing the opportunity to re-sign him or add picks. Maybe you can't put a dollar sign on that, but that does have value; it's hardly the "nothing" that some would make it out to be.</p>
<p><a href="http://natsinsider.blogspot.com/2010/04/still-sore-about-soriano.html">Think about what happened</a> with the <span>Alfonso Soriano</span> situation. The Nats got blasted here to there for not trading Soriano and getting "nothing" in return. Well, by not trading him, the Nats got the pick that became <span>Jordan Zimmermann</span>. That's certainly better than had Bowden taken one of the rumored packages that centered on Phil Humber.</p>
<p>Rizzo seems to know this, which is why the stories you're seeing indicate that <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/16/1573603/adam-dunn-trade-rumor-nationals-yankees-price">he's shooting for the moon</a> with these deals. He's asking for a lot not just because Dunn's a pretty damn good player, but because not trading him has value to the Nats too.</p>
<p>If the team is <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/07/stan_kasten_nats_so_much_close.html">as close as Stan Kasten believes</a> it is, then NOT trading Dunn -- is probably the right move. So while the deadline ticks closer, don't get excited. He's probably not going anywhere.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/23/1583749/adam-dunn-trade-rumor-nationals-mike-rizzoChris Needham2010-07-23T01:53:23-04:002010-07-23T01:53:23-04:00The Value Of Not Trading Adam Dunn
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cwuch2iziZTZ9A5g5Qh4aedTvcY=/0x26:400x293/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47828113/large_dc.sbnation.com.minimal.0.png" />
</figure>
<p>The Nats believe they're close to competing, whether or not you do. And that likely means that Adam Dunn isn't going anywhere.</p> <p>In the next week, you're going to see a whole lot of horse puckey about how the Nats NEED to do this. Or they NEED to do that. These next few days are going to be <a href="http://www.csnwashington.com/07/22/10/Kushner-Adam-Dunn-To-Trade-Or-Not-To-Tra/landing_v3.html?blockID=275635&feedID=6458">a referendum on general manager Mike Rizzo</a>.</p>
<p>As if his legacy is going to be determined on whether or not he can find a home for <span>Adam Dunn</span> -- instead of other things like not signing international free agents. {<a href="http://natsfarm.com/2010/07/20/nats-sign-cuban-defector/">checks transaction log</a>} Wait. Scratch that.</p>
<p>Whether or not to trade Adam Dunn is a tough decision, with a whole lot of moving parts. It can't be boiled down to a simple "must" or "must not."</p>
<p>It's clear that Rizzo's been <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/06/mike_rizzo_on_the_trading_dead.html">interested in keeping him around</a>. The team has been negotiating with his agent, trying to find a fair deal on an extension. <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/19/1576719/adam-dunn-trade-rumor-nationals-new-contract">The scuttlebutt last week</a> was that Dunn was looking for something in the range of 4-years, $60 million. I hope that Rizzo was enough of a professional to stifle the laughter before saying "no thanks."</p>
<p>There are a few different end-games here. Let's assume that the team doesn't trade him. What are the advantages then?</p>
<p>For one, they keep Dunn and <a href="http://www.masnsports.com/byron_kerr/2010/07/zimmerman-wants-dunn-and-hammer-to-stay-put.html">Ryan Zimmerman happy</a>. A happy Zimmerman is a non-jaded, non-damn-i-can't-wait-to-sign-with-the-<a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/teams/NYY">Yankees</a> kind of player. Second, a happy Dunn and a happy Zimmerman might mean that Dunn's asking price comes down a smidgen, especially in the few months between now and November, when he'd be able to file for free agency. Third, were they to trade Dunn, especially after he's talked about liking it here and not really wanting to be traded, they'd have probably napalmed those bridges, meaning he wouldn't come back.</p>
<p>So not trading Dunn increases the chances that he's wearing the Curly W next season.</p>
<p>Not trading him also means there's a possibility of arbitration. If the Nats offered arbitration to Dunn, the worst-case scenario would be something like a 1-year, $16 million deal. I'd do that in a heartbeat. The problem with Dunn isn't what he's going to do in 2011, but what he might be doing in 2014 -- pining for the fjords, perhaps?</p>
<p>If they offer and he accepts, great. If they offer and he walks, great, too. ‘Cause when some other lowly team signs Dunn, the Nats net two extra draft picks (likely both among the top 35 or so picks). There's not much downside there, is there?</p>
<p>So if Rizzo does trade him, he's losing the opportunity to re-sign him or add picks. Maybe you can't put a dollar sign on that, but that does have value; it's hardly the "nothing" that some would make it out to be.</p>
<p><a href="http://natsinsider.blogspot.com/2010/04/still-sore-about-soriano.html">Think about what happened</a> with the <span>Alfonso Soriano</span> situation. The Nats got blasted here to there for not trading Soriano and getting "nothing" in return. Well, by not trading him, the Nats got the pick that became <span>Jordan Zimmermann</span>. That's certainly better than had Bowden taken one of the rumored packages that centered on Phil Humber.</p>
<p>Rizzo seems to know this, which is why the stories you're seeing indicate that <a href="http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/16/1573603/adam-dunn-trade-rumor-nationals-yankees-price">he's shooting for the moon</a> with these deals. He's asking for a lot not just because Dunn's a pretty damn good player, but because not trading him has value to the Nats too.</p>
<p>If the team is <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/07/stan_kasten_nats_so_much_close.html">as close as Stan Kasten believes</a> it is, then NOT trading Dunn -- is probably the right move. So while the deadline ticks closer, don't get excited. He's probably not going anywhere.</p>
https://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/23/1583686/the-value-of-not-trading-adam-dunnChris Needham