I’m off to Pennsylvania this evening to visit my new niece, Bridget, so I will not be able to listen to game four tonight.
I’ll leave this thread open to discuss the game for those headed to Woodbridge or listening online.
Enjoy.
Potomac Nationals Playoff Thread
- No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
#1 by EdDC - September 12th, 2008 at 18:53
Hey, look, I know it is time to move on from the Nats’ failure to sign their top draft pick. But for those of you who are convinced that Crow is a greedy jerk, that the Nats are better off without him, and that every prudent business has to have a budget and stick with it, at least consider Boswell’s take from today’s online chat:
“The Nats say that the C offer was $9-million until 16 MINUTES before the final deadline. I’ve heard that in the last day. I read Bowden’s 3,700-word interview with Chico (excellent) but I boil it down to this. The Nats, in those final minutes, offered $3.3-million. Maybe it was $3.5M. Who cares. It would have made Crow, taken No. 9, the highest paid player in the draft. The Hendricks dropped their offer to $4M. Then the deal didn’t get done.
Bad black eye for both sides. The Nats (Bowden) may have gotten the other side annoyed by making contact with the father/family __ie., going outside channels. Maybe the Hendricks just haven’t learned how to run a bluff, then still get a deal done. If the nats look somewhat bad, the agents look like absolute IDIOTS. Their kid has nowhere to go for a year and, by any account, he turned down a decent contract. The Nats would say generous.
Anyway, the Nats then made two last minute signings of other players that they previously didn’t think would fit in their budget.
THEIR BUDGET? What budget __for building the farm system? They have a budget for that, TOO.
Ok, everybody has a budget for everything in every business.
But the Nats budget it has now become clear is Too Damn Low. And they better figure it out. This is just one example. I’m sure I’ll return to this.”
#2 by dian - September 12th, 2008 at 21:35
NATA JUST WON!! it doesnt gt better thn that!!
#3 by dian - September 12th, 2008 at 21:35
JUST WON!! it doesnt gt better thn that!!
#4 by Sue Dinem - September 12th, 2008 at 22:37
If we can excuse EdDC’s philistinic, scab-picking rant, let’s focus on what just happened in Woodbridge. The Potomac Nationals just won the organization’s first full-season league championship.
Until the parent club finishes above .500, this is bigger than Oprah because it represents a rebirth in talent from a system that was laid fallow by MLB and plundered by Omar Minaya (seriously, can somebody, somewhere rant about how much damage this man did?).
Naturally, there will be naysayers that will scoff. The Post will have perhaps an entire two paragraphs about it tomorrow (don’t want to steal any precious time from the THE MOST OVERRATED NFL FRANCHISE, do we?) But for those of us who know better, this was a magical ride the past two weeks: Three straight one-run victories in the opening round, followed by an improbable three-run, two-out, ninth-inning HR last night to force extras and pave the way for an 8-7 win.
Tonight, there wasn’t much doubt. Well, a little. Even when these guys went up by seven, it didn’t feel like enough. But they exposed the Pelican offense for what it was (all-or-nothing) and beat them for the 14th time in 24 games.
Congratulations, boys. It was a fun season, and never, ever boring.
#5 by natsfan1a - September 12th, 2008 at 22:56
I’d figured the Post for one, if any, graphs. ;-) But that won’t take away from what the P-Nats accomplished. It was such fun to see the guys in a big dog pile on the field after they clinched! Congrats to the P-Nats on a great season (and post-season)!!
#6 by BristowNats - September 12th, 2008 at 22:57
It was great! Congrats to Mr. Silber. 20 years owning that team and he still loves every minute of it.
14-10 against MB?? I didn’t think we had done that well. They were the one team that I really feared in the playoffs.
I don’t want to dwell on the negative but someone notable from the parent club could have been there. This is the first tangible sign of progress and they could have taken some of the credit.
#7 by Mama B - September 12th, 2008 at 23:34
Congratulations should go to all the guys on the team for playing all the way to the end. Kudos to manager Randy Knorr and coaches Jerry Brown and Randy Tomlin. They had talent to work with, but they also made it work.
Bobby Williams was there last night, but BristowNats, you are right – it would have been nice to see someone from the parent club take an interest in this team. It was nice to actually see the P-Nats victory as the lead story for Channel $ sports.
#8 by Mama B - September 12th, 2008 at 23:35
make that channel4
#9 by Bill - September 13th, 2008 at 00:09
Mark Lerner was in attendance at tonights game.
#10 by SlowPitch63 - September 13th, 2008 at 07:41
Hoooooray! Congrats to the P-Nats they’re my neighbors. I’m doing a happy dance now…be thankful you can’t see me.
But let’s give EdDC his due, joy for the present shouldn’t take our eye of the ball, which, afterall is for improvement of the big club.
Positives – improved the scouting department, put resources into the Dom Rep, claimed Flores, traded for Dukes and the middle infielders. Saw improvement of the lower minor league clubs. Paid over slot for #2, 3, 4, 5, and 15. If the improved scouting was right these should make a difference.
Negatives – did a poor job signing ML FAs. Failed to fully exploit the draft by not signing #1, 14, 20 and a potential future #1 in their #32, Silverstein. Higher minors were mediocre.
The Minaya hole out of which they must climb is too deep for any fumbles. Baseball development, more than any other sport, depends on volume and they failed to fully exploit the draft, apparently because of a constrictive budget and no interest in taking risks. They must do better, they’re too far behind to make anything less than extraordinary efforts.
Let’s play two!
#11 by Mark L - September 13th, 2008 at 08:41
Randy Knorr is further proof that catchers make the best managers. Played in 10+ seasons in the bigs, never getting more than 130 at bats in any season, and couldn’t hit his weight. It’s obvious he always kept his head in the game. You have to have the players, yes, but the key to success at that level is to have great teachers, and the P-Nats certainly had them.
#12 by Sue Dinem - September 13th, 2008 at 09:05
Let’s just say that EdDC reminds me of an old Henny Youngman joke that goes something like this: A grandma is at the coast with her grandson. A big wave comes and washes the kid out to sea. The lifeguards swim out, bring him back to shore, perform CPR and revive him. They turn to the grandma and say, “we saved your grandson.” She replies “He had a hat!”
#13 by EdDC - September 13th, 2008 at 09:42
Winning in Class A minor leagues is great. Congrats to the P-Nats.
My quote from Boswell yesterday indicates to me that the Nats have to pay attention to all aspects of team-building to win at the major league level. Probably that starts with signing your draft picks, especially your top pick, who after all was the college pitcher of the year in 2008.
These silver linings like with the P-Nats are good enough for some and not good enough for others, without the deep commitment to winning that many of us had hoped for. As Boswell says, the Nats better do some revamping of their philosophy, especially when it comes to their little budgets. The fans shouldn’t let ownership get away with their little budgets. Anyway, I am glad Boswell is pushing for change.
Until that happens, we can all rejoice in the Class A victory–high A at that!
#14 by Sue Dinem - September 13th, 2008 at 15:18
EdDC – Indeed, but the implication that the Nats were “too cheap” to give in to the demands of a college pitcher is, at best, a dubious argument.
Take a look at the 1996-2005 drafts, excluding the high schoolers, these are guys that are roughly 25-34 years old, i.e. they should be in the majors now.
Now, see how many college pitchers were taken in the top 10. Nearly three dozen, right?
Now, a fair amount of them did make the majors, right? But look more closely…
How many of them have been both consistently effective AND durable?
Answer: Not many. In fact, very few.
#15 by SlowPitch63 - September 13th, 2008 at 16:35
Sue, Understand your point, but the more you choose the better chance you have of one or more advancing. I would like to see the Nats spend more on the draft to expand their possibiities of success. I’m open to discussion. If you disagree, how would you proceed?
Let’s play two!
#16 by Sue Dinem - September 13th, 2008 at 18:00
I don’t disagree that the Nats ought to be a little less tight-fisted, but throwing money at an unproven college pitcher isn’t the best use of it.
We didn’t get Aaron Crow. Get over it. No team signs all its draft picks.
Need I also remind folks, that it ain’t just about spending money? Ask any O’s fan and they’ll tell you.
#17 by Fake Mark Lerner - September 13th, 2008 at 19:24
::pats Ms. Dinem on head::
::ponders $ that could be made by selling championship t-shirts::
#18 by EdDC - September 13th, 2008 at 19:41
Sue,
You mention the O’s. I keep thinking how they spent $6 million the draft before on a catcher, while the Nats passed on their first rounder this year for $2 million less.
If you assume the kids are not very good or durable, then why bother with the draft? I’ll be glad to get over it, when the Lerners reassure the fans that their Plan is alive and well, and that they were just kidding this year with their little budgets for signing draftees.
You say no team signs all their picks. The Nats actually chose LAST this year of all the MLB teams, if you throw away the first rounder (which they did). The Yankees did not sign their first rounder either, but they had a sandwich round pick, so even they chose higher than the Nats. That’s no way to dig out of a big hole in the farm system!
The P-Nats were draftees at one point, or most of them were, I guess. Good thing!
#19 by Sue Dinem - September 13th, 2008 at 20:08
EdDC – Since you missed the litote, let me restate it more plainly: I agree with you that the Nationals should spend more than they did on the draft.
However, I disagree that it was that big a loss to miss out on a college pitcher. Again, since the nuance was lost on you, I’ll restate: I’m not against drafting college pitchers, but it’s extremely risky because they are very likely to get hurt. Why? Because they are often overused (read: they throw a lot of pitches in a short period of time), especially in the higher-echelon..er, big-time programs.
#20 by dian - September 13th, 2008 at 20:19
and its jerry browne with an “E” on the end of his name
#21 by EdDC - September 13th, 2008 at 20:53
Well, sometimes you have to take the risk to draft pitchers so that you get a pitcher in your farm system:
Born: May 23, 1986 in Auburndale, Wis. High School: College: Wisconsin-Stevens Point Ht.: 6-2 Wt.: 200 Bats: R Throws: R 2008 Pitching Statistics Club (League) Class W L ERA G GS CG SV IP H R ER HR BB SO WP BB/9 SO/9 AVG WHIP Potomac (CAR) HiA 3 1 1.65 5 4 0 1 27.1 15 6 5 1 8 31 0 2.63 10.21 .167 0.84 Harrisburg (EL) AA 7 2 3.21 20 20 0 0 106.2 89 42 38 9 39 103 2 3.29 8.69 .226 1.20 Minor League Totals 10 3 2.89 25 24 0 1 134.0 104 48 43 10 47 134 2 3.16 9.00 .215 1.13
#22 by Sue Dinem - September 14th, 2008 at 08:27
And your point is?
#23 by Todd Boss - September 14th, 2008 at 09:58
If you guys followed along with the Aaron Crow saga, read Bowden’s account and listened to his radio interview a couple weeks back, you’d understand why he didn’t sign with the nationals.
They asked for $9M to start, a patently ridiculous number for the #9 overall pick, they refused to visit DC or take phone calls from the team, demanded a MLB deal, continued to demand more money than players taken before him. But according to Crow himself, it was obvious he didn’t want to play for our team from the onset and that’s the real reason they made negotiations so ridiculous.
Crow and his advisors are absolute idiots for this; he loses a year of development, won’t get drafted as high next year so will get offered even less money, won’t get a MLB deal as a result, and has no leverage against the drafting team to go back to finish his senior year since he stupidly signed a deal w/ the independent league.
#24 by Sue Dinem - September 14th, 2008 at 10:07
Couldn’t agree with you more, especially the part about Crow losing the most. I certainly hope, though, that other kids were paying attention and will think twice before signing with his “agents.”
#25 by bangzoom - September 14th, 2008 at 10:43
Think about it this way… If you were Crow, and you were confident you could make it to the big leagues with any organization, would you REALLY want to play for the Nationals? We’ve been over this… while it might not be COMPLETELY the Nats’ fault, if Crow wasn’t going to sign, the scouts/front office should’ve known better than to draft him.
Also, I hope JimBow enjoys the 3rd light-hitting middle infielder he traded for (Alberto Gonzalez)… he gave up Jhonny Nunez, who has been lights-out as a reliever with Trenton, just like he was as soon as he went to the bullpen in the Nats’ system. Not sure how Nunez will be as a big-leaguer, but I really didn’t see the point of trading for THREE middle INF when we had just re-signed Cristian Guzman.
#26 by EdDC - September 14th, 2008 at 18:12
It’s OK to buy the Nats’ spin. They do make some sense about how mistreated they were by Crow and his agent.
The fact is that Crow could have been signed for $4 million and the Nats passed. We won’t know if this was a good move or not for at least a couple years. You could be right that the Nats should have passed, and many others could be right that the Nats should have stepped up and signed Crow at the last minute.
A lot of it depends on how much confidence you have in the Nats’ organization and their willingness to spend the money to bring DC a winner. I sure have my doubts about this.
#27 by Mark L - September 14th, 2008 at 21:21
That only makes sense if you think Crow’s agents were trying very hard at all to make this happen. They didn’t answer their phone or return messages. To quote Boswell, these guys were complete idiots.
#28 by EdDC - September 14th, 2008 at 21:41
Regardless of how stupid and greedy the idiot agents were (and management always paints them that way), the deal came down to:
$4 million, do you want to sign or not? The Nats chose “not.”
Sometimes you have to just remove all the talk about who was the nastier and most abusive and just stick to the facts. Should you take the deal or not? I just think of it as a business strategy that failed for the agent.
As a fan, I say spend the money–but that’s only because i want to see a winner in this town, and have seen short-sighted owners here in the past, going all the way back to Clark and Calvin Griffith.
Of course, a lot of other fans say: “Protect the wealth of the owners as the top priority.” I also can see the point of rooting for the balance sheet, which has a lot of charm and excitement too! Just depends where your priorities are.
#29 by Mama B - September 14th, 2008 at 22:58
Do you think you can drop this now? Celebrate the P-Nats championship, and as for the rest, there’s always next year.
#30 by natsfan1a - September 15th, 2008 at 11:20
EdDC’s general comment about the number of P-Nats who were draftees at one point makes me curious as to what percentage of our minor league players were drafted by the Nats. Looking at the latest roster on the P-Nats site, it looks like the Nationals acquired not quite 2/3 of the players via the draft and acquired not quite 1/3 as free agents (with several trades being thrown in there as well). Is there any discernable trend in the farm system as to overall percentages (apologies if I’ve missed a prior entry about this)?