I finally got around to cleaning up the Big Board. The Nationals have made a series of procedural moves over the last month and change.
Terrell Young was returned to the Cincinnati Reds. This is part of Rule 5, players selected in the R5 draft must spend a minimum of 90 days on the 25-man active roster in order to be sent to the minors. The Nationals had attempted to return Young to the Reds earlier this year but an injury precluded them from doing so. It appears taht the Reds were receptive to accepting him in the off-season.
The Nats activated all of the players on the 40-man who were either in the minors (Matt Chico, Shairon Martis, Collin Balester, Ryan Mattheus, & Luis Atilano) or on the 15-day DL (Austin Kearns and Nyjer Morgan). This is something all teams will do after their season ends.
Additionally, they outrighted Jorge Padilla and Jamie Burke to Syracuse which removes them from the 40-man.
This leaves the Nationals at 38/40. There are several more moves on the horizon with five potential free agents (CA Josh Bard, DH Dmitri Young, OF Austin Kearns, RHSP Livan Hernandez, & LHRP Ron Villone) who can file for free agency after the World Series ends. I’d expect all five to file for free agency with Bard, Hernandez, & Villone the most likely to re-sign at some point. (None are Type A or B so that is not a consideration). Those filings would reduce the Nationals to 33/40.
The Nationals also have ten arbitration eligible players (service time courtesy of Cot’s)
- RHRP Jason Bergmann 3.069
- LHRP Sean Burnett 3.085
- CA Jesus Flores 2.158 (likely a Super Two)
- RHRP Logan Kensing 4.022
- RHRP Mike MacDougal 5.143
- CA Wil Nieves 3.092
- LHSP Scott Olsen 4.101
- IF Pete Orr 4.058
- RHRP Saul Rivera 3 & change
- OF Josh Willingham 4.123
The Nationals have until December 12, 2009 to decide whether to tender them contracts. If they opt to non-tender them, those players are removed from the 40-man. Bergmann, Kensing, Orr, Nieves & Rivera all seem to be the type of players who are either (a) signed to a one-year deal prior to the arbitration deadline or (b) non-tendered and then perhaps re-signed to either a major or minor league contract. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say Bergmann and Rivera are signed to one-year deals while Nieves, Orr & Kensing might be re-signed to minor league deals.
The four guys I see getting tendered are Burnett, Flores, Olsen & Willingham. Burnett seems a likely sign before the arbitration deadline but I’ll say the Nationals offer the lefty arbitration if an agreement has not been reached to keep the negotiations exclusive. Flores seems a no-brainer but I am beginning to worry about his health as he has not been able to stay off of the DL for the last two seasons. Olsen is the most tenuous of those guesses. Coming off of a labrum injury, it might be more likely to see the Nationals & Olsen agree to an incentive-laden two-year deal as he works his way back from injury rather than risk the arbitration process. Willingham is going to be the interesting one. He seems the most likely to (a) go to arbitration for a one-year deal or (b) sign a multi-year deal with the Nats.
MacDougal is a wild card to me. I’m not sure I would risk the chance of losing in arbitration. If the Nationals cannot come to terms by December 12, I would not be surprised to see them non-tender him.
All of this has been updated on the Big Board. I have made all of the player movements (including removing all minor leaguers from the DL) and also annotated all of the aforementioned players with either “F/A” or “arb” as appropriate.
#1 by TimDz - November 2nd, 2009 at 15:42
At thr risk of sounding like a rube, are there any players out there that the Nats risk losing to the rule 5 Draft? I know that some are protected due to being prospects, but are there any High A or AA players that aren’t on the 40 man that may end up getting drafted by rule 5?
#2 by Brian Oliver - November 2nd, 2009 at 15:48
TimDz – That’s my next chore … sorting through the R5 eligibles. If you take a look here, you can see who is R5 eligible. Anyone not on the 40-man roster with a R5 eligibility of 2009 or earlier can be selected. The rule of thumb is HS players drafted/signed in 2005 and college players drafted/signed in 2006.
#3 by Brian Oliver - November 2nd, 2009 at 15:52
2005 draft: Mike Daniel, Tim Pahuta & Jack Spradlin are eligible again. All were drafted out of college and were R5 eligible last year as well. There are no HS players remaining in the organization from 2005.
2006 draft: No HS are R5 eligible this year so guys like Marrero, Willems, etc are not available. The college players available are Sean Rooney, Robby Jacobsen, Cory VanAllen, Zech Zinicola, Cole Kimball, Hassan Pena, Erik Arnesen, & Adam Carr. Josh Wilkie was signed as an undrafted F/A out of George Washington University and is also R5 eligible.
I need to cull through the other players (specifically the international F/A) to see who else is available.
#4 by estuartj - November 2nd, 2009 at 15:56
With Olsen they might also offer arbitration, but with a low-ball number, take it to a hearing (which they will lose) and then if he is back to ‘07 performance in ST he’s still a bargain and if he’s not you release him before his salary vests and you only have to pay 20% (see Hill, Shawn).
#5 by Pilchard - November 2nd, 2009 at 16:06
Really interesting stuff. MacDougal will be a very tough call. While he looked shaky at times, I believe that he was among the leaders in save % in 2009. As Tampa, the Phillies, the Cubs and among others can attest, even a really talented team will suffer if the closer can’t get the job done. If the Nats jettison MacDougal, who is a candidate to close among those on the roster? Clippard? Burnett? Realize that Storen is the prospective long-term closer, but I don’t see the Nats trying him in that role in 2010.
I would think that the Nats will try to negotiate a reasonable 1 year+ option contract with MacDougal, who liked it in DC after being kicked around by the White Sox.
#6 by TimDz - November 2nd, 2009 at 16:12
2010 possible R 5 candidates: Lyons, Rhinehart, Whiting, Marrero, King.
2011 possible R 5 candidates: Burgess, Norris, Espinosa, Lombardozzi.
These are a few of the names that stick out (based on seeing the names mentioned on this board). From my limited (emphasis on the word limited) knowledge, 2010 seems to be a year of choices (expose, place on 40 man or trade). Marrero’s progress next year appears to be key as to whether or not he is in the long-term plans.
#7 by Pilchard - November 2nd, 2009 at 16:59
Not sure how accurate the MPH readings are on the gametracker for the AZ Fall League, but gametracker has Strasburg throwing his fastball 98-100 and his curve is 84-85. Also, he has pitched 4 shutout innings and has 5Ks. Looks like SS will have 3 out of 4 solid outings.
#8 by BinM - November 2nd, 2009 at 17:06
Brian: Thanks for the updates on the Big Board – One correction of note; Montz is no longer on the 40-man (DFA, outrighted to SYR 10/23/09).
#9 by BinM - November 2nd, 2009 at 17:12
Pilchard – I’m with you regarding MacDougal; Offer him a 1+1 with incentives, but tender him if you can’t get a deal signed.
#10 by estuartj - November 2nd, 2009 at 17:14
SS probably done after 68 pitches (43 strikes) final line;
5.0IP 4H 1ER 1BB 6K 5.28 ERA
He was sitting about 98-99 on his FBs, I think pitch track was calling his chang-ups 4 seem FB since he was about 90-92, his slider looked good when he used it, but he did hang a couple curves.
Only one solidly hit ball, 2B to LF that lead to the only ER of the outing. Hope we had some peeps down there to give us more info on how he looked (and maybe some video coming too).
#11 by Rocket Surgeon - November 2nd, 2009 at 18:15
Good day for the Nats in the AFL-
Strasburg: gets the W. Dominant with 6 K’s Mandel, Wilkie, Storen: 3 innings, 1 ER, 3 K’s Espinosa: 2 for 4 w/3 R’s Marrero: 2 for 5 w/5 RBI’s
Desert Dogs win 10-2.
#12 by Todd Boss - November 2nd, 2009 at 18:16
We’re going to have plenty of space on the 40-man once the 5 FAs take off, so rule5 protection shouldn’t be an issue. However, the performance of practically all our rule5 eligible guys this year wouldn’t seem to warrant a 40-man spot on another team. The only guys you could make arguments for are Arneson and the two AFL guys Wilkie and
I had Chico being Arbitration eligible this year; i’m guessing it got pushed back a year b/c he’s accrued no ML service time in 2009. He has exactly 2.000 years service time right now.
Of our 10 arb elibilbles: I’d: - tender Willingham, Burnett, Flores and Bergmann. - work on a contract with Olsen and MacDougal that makes sense for the team. Neither are worth what they’d get in arbitration. - non-tender or negotiate minor league contracts with Rivera, Nieves, Kensing and Orr. Actually, I’d DFA both Kensing and Orr to AAA right now; nobody will pick them up, just as nobody picked them up during the other times they’ve been desginated the last couple years.
#13 by Ric - November 2nd, 2009 at 18:50
Brian – I believe Montz and Sosa are off the 40-man; and Jesse English is on
#14 by Pilchard - November 2nd, 2009 at 19:28
Ric is correct according to the Nats official website: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=was
#15 by Dick - November 2nd, 2009 at 20:05
Nats have to offer Olsen at least 80% of his previous salary by rule. I figure that to be 2.24 million as the minimum the Nats HAVE to offer based on this past year’s $2.8 million salary. He can counter at something over $3 million and would probably win, arbitrators usually don’t cut pay. So, say he were to win $3 million but got cut, the Nats would still be on the hook for $600,000 for nothing. Remember, Hill only made $750,000 in arbitration so the Nats were only out $150,000.
I bet Olsen is non-tendered, like the Chief. Unfortunately, the rules of arbirtration kind of force a team with an injured player to non-tender him since the incumbent team must offer 80% of his prior contract. As I said, the proper analogy is Cordero, not Hill, in my view.
If they non-tender Olsen they, along with 29 other teams, can negotiate an incentive-laden contract knowing better than anyone else what his true health status is likely to be.
#16 by Jake - November 2nd, 2009 at 20:59
Brian – Gianison Boekhoudt is on the restricted list. What does that mean?
Thanks
#17 by Jake - November 3rd, 2009 at 07:52
Brian – Gianison Boekhoudt is on the restricted list. What does that mean?
Thanks P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
#18 by Brian Oliver - November 3rd, 2009 at 08:32
The restricted list is a catchall for various possibilities. He could have had something non-baseball/non-injury related that kept him away from the team. We will never really know.
#19 by Rocket Surgeon - November 3rd, 2009 at 10:29
I heard that Rizzo and Kasten were in the stands yesterday in Surprise to watch the Nats prospects. I searched the Web for confirmation but couldn’t find anything of note. However, I thought it was intersting that all the Nats players saw action, particularly the pitchers. Especially since Storen had already pitched on Saturday. Anyway, if they were watching they had to come away encouraged.
#20 by Rocket Surgeon - November 3rd, 2009 at 12:50
Check out this link-
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/stephen-strasburgs-afl-surprise/
#21 by Wallyball - November 3rd, 2009 at 13:34
Rocket Surgeon – that was a good article, thanks for the link. The ranking of the Nats farm system is going to see noticeable improvement this year, I think.
Brian – willing to hazard an early guess at their overall rank? My guess – just inside top half, 14 or so. SS alone probably drops them below 20, then add Storen, and improvements from Norris, Marrero, Meyers, Perez, Espy et al more than compensate for losing Zimm and some of the pitchers that graduated beyond prospects. I would also guess 3, maybe 4 Top 100 prospects.
#22 by Brian Oliver - November 3rd, 2009 at 13:38
Wally – They were #21 in last year’s ranking. I don’t believe they would fall given some of the things you mentioned. I hope they push the top half (15 or better). A realistic range IMO is 13-17.
Keep in mind that I tend to be more conservative in these sorts of things.
#23 by Wallyball - November 3rd, 2009 at 13:52
That range feels appropriate to me. These things tend to get a momentum of their own, so someone could give a higher ranking because of SS and Storen, let’s say, but it would feel inflated, kind of like the #9 ranking from a few years ago. It still bums me out about JZimm’s injury, though.
Regardless of the ranking, right now feels like the best that the system has been since they moved here. Do you agree?
#24 by Brian Oliver - November 3rd, 2009 at 13:57
Since 2005? Absolutely. They are a more robust system. When I first started NFA, the names of the guys I was tracking as the Nats top prospects was not that impressive. No offense to Kory Casto, but when he is considered the #1 prospect, the organization has nowhere to go but up.
The thing is that I figured it would take 3-4 drafts before the team could realistically feel like it was truly on the upswing. The Bowden fisaco slowed that down a bit.
They really need to get the international pipeline healthier but in my opinion they are almost at the point where we won’t see guys too old for their level (i.e. 25-year olds playing in the Carolina League).
#25 by Scott - November 3rd, 2009 at 14:20
At best, Mike MacDougal should be offered an incentive laden 1-year deal with maybe a vesting player option for a second year based on performance metrics. No way should he be offered arbitration, which would reward him for silly things like saves over more illustrative metrics of how he pitched like the fact he walked as many guys as he struck out for us.
He’s simply not a very good pitcher anymore. His K-rate has plummeted, his BB-rate has skyrocketed, he got lucky last year with a BABIP of .291 against a career average of .320. I guess on the plus side he gives up lots of ground balls and few homeruns. That’s something.
But we should count on a 4.50 ERA from him next year, meaning we should give him a contract (that’s better than a lot of our relievers) but not a huge contract.
#26 by dd - November 3rd, 2009 at 14:38
Rocket Surgeon- While Strasburg had by far his best outing, giving up 2 runs in 5 innings, his 5.28 ERA and 3 home runs allowed in 15 innings shows he has more learning to do. It is somewhat good to see that he will not dominate anywhere he goes, after all, Stephen he is now a pro. Hope to see him adapt at evry level.
#27 by Rocket Surgeon - November 3rd, 2009 at 15:12
dd-Not to nitpick (ok, I guess I am nitpicking) but he only gave up 1 run yesterday (that set up by a diving catch attempt by the LF that turned into a double). If you discount his one bad start, he’s been dominant against advanced competition. I do agree with you, he’s got some learning to do but I don’t believe starting him below AA makes any sense. His raw stuff is unhittable and his command is superb. Once he hits his “groove” in setting up hitters, he will dominate anywhere he pitches, and that includes the majors.
#28 by Scott - November 3rd, 2009 at 15:42
Small sample size alert!
He’s been fairly dominant in 3 of 4 starts in the AFL, as RS noted, his command has been shown to be excellent, and his raw stuff is better than almost anyone in the majors right now (maybe King Felix is better? Verlander?).
I think he could easily start in the majors for the Nationals next year (he’d obviously outperform Livan). If anything, they’ll keep him down through June in order to push off his arbitration years, and while he’s in the minors, starting off in AA I’d imagine, I’d hope they would only work with him on developing his change as an out pitch against left handers.
I don’t think one bad game out of four says anything more than it’s a huge advantage for hitters coming off full seasons to face a guy coming off a 4 month layoff.
#29 by Mark - November 3rd, 2009 at 15:54
I agree with Rocket about Strasburg. The one bad game he had (and it was a “doosie”) really does not speak to his real stuff so far. He’s clearly improving, and has not given up a HR outside of that bad game and also has a 1.48 ERA outside of that game. Frankly, I’m glad he got shallacked – it gives him respect for the game and keeps him humble.
#30 by Sue Dinem - November 3rd, 2009 at 16:11
KC got this kid. Zack something-or-other.
I wouldn’t worry too much about what’s going on in the AFL. Getting smacked around will be good for Strasburg because (a) it will temper expectations (b) he will learn from it.
And if that happens to impel the organization to start him lower than AA… so be it ;-)
#31 by Rocket Surgeon - November 3rd, 2009 at 16:22
Appreciate the feedback. It’s always thoughtful on NFA and I always learn something from the participants, particularly about roster/contractual issues.
Regarding where SS starts the 2010 season, I did notice on other blogs that there were some suggestions he start at Hagerstown or Potomac in order to pump up enthusiasm and attendance at these locations.
#32 by Mark - November 3rd, 2009 at 17:22
I see absolutely no need to rush him, just place him where naturally belongs based on his performance. Last year I saw a little more restraint as far as promotions go. Most players will be promoted based on level domination PLUS orginizational need. With SS, I suspect, his promotions will be based solely on performance. I say start him at Potomac, and his dominance ought to be evident immediately.
#33 by Pilchard - November 3rd, 2009 at 17:23
Confident that minor league attendance issues will play no role as to the level where SS starts next season (fwiw, if impact on attendance is a concern, SS would start the season in DC as SS would generate more revenue by pitching in DC than at any other spot in the organization).
SS is the most valuable development asset in the organization, and what’s best for SS’s development as a pitcher will be the only factor in determining where he begins the 2010 season.