tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post7047917292526755901..comments2024-01-05T03:41:19.602-05:00Comments on Nats Triple Play: See Pat. See Pat Stand. Stand Pat Stand.Natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03967066946860270813noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-64479170486745737242007-08-02T22:34:00.000-04:002007-08-02T22:34:00.000-04:00Oh definitely, I really do like Chris' blog a lot....Oh definitely, I really do like Chris' blog a lot. I just wanted to poke fun at him a bit, especially after a few of the comments he got.<BR/><BR/>I also agree about Betemit. I think I would take that chance to add the offense he's capable of. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, thanks again to all of you guys for the work you put into this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-30161472308073541352007-08-02T15:52:00.000-04:002007-08-02T15:52:00.000-04:00mf - thanks for the kind words and constructive cr...mf - thanks for the kind words and constructive criticism. The kind of opinion blogging we do (Bowden Sux! Zimmerman is teh bestest evar!!1!) has to be done at least partially tongue in cheek, otherwise it's just obnoxious. For all his cynicism, Chris <I>is</I> a fan and a great blogger, and he doesn't take himself too seriously, even when he gets picked up by the Main Stream Media. <BR/><BR/>FWIW, I'd be okay with a Rauch for Betemit trade, on the theory that Betemit's still young enough to improve, and represents a step up over Tony Batista, D'Angelo Jiminez and the like as a bench player. Basil will just never forgive Wilson for leaving Richmond without a pennant!Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03967066946860270813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-25905755324949154082007-08-02T13:46:00.000-04:002007-08-02T13:46:00.000-04:00Back in the spring of '05, there were rumors . . ....Back in the spring of '05, there were rumors . . . well, I can't really remember the rumors. Either we wanted Betemit but wouldn't meet Atlanta's price, or Atlanta wanted to dump Betemit on us but it didn't work out. Anyway, he was considered a disappointment and out of options.<BR/><BR/>Times do change, I suppose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-79667892480021904772007-08-02T12:46:00.000-04:002007-08-02T12:46:00.000-04:00Betemit would be a good player to have in theory, ...Betemit would be a good player to have in theory, but not necessarily for the Nats. He has starting potential really only at 3b. He has played 2b & ss, but not well enough to be a starter for a decent team. But the Nats already have a 3b. So, Betemit would be basically a younger version of Belliard with more offense and less defense. I’d rather have him on the roster than Tony Batista, but I wouldn’t trade Rauch for him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-5312569686365789862007-08-02T12:21:00.000-04:002007-08-02T12:21:00.000-04:00This was a very good post. Over the last few days ...This was a very good post. Over the last few days reading around, I couldn't really figure out why people seemed as upset as they did, but you have articulated a different take very well. Thank you for doing so. <BR/><BR/>I also think bdrube brings up some excellent points as well.<BR/><BR/>One other thing, and this probably isn't the appropriate place for it, but I really appreciated Basil's comment about not "judging the team too arrogantly" from our end. That's one point I think the blog and BP world misses with some of their criticism. And it was a very good piece as well. We're very lucky to have so many of you providing thought provoking insight into the Nats, even Chris and his cynicism! (I love your writing Chris!)<BR/><BR/>Just for fun, if the Nats had the chance to get Betemit for Rauch, would you guys have done that? Despite the lower BA this year, he's still been a pretty effective third baseman, and he's young.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-61352690597243499582007-08-01T21:29:00.000-04:002007-08-01T21:29:00.000-04:00Nate, Point(s) well taken -- but when you say: 'Bu...Nate, <BR/><BR/>Point(s) well taken -- but when you say: <BR/><BR/><I>'But saints preserve us from a front office that makes moves to "send messages". Down that road lies Pittsburgh.'</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not convinced that's not what the signing of Da Meathook (and maybe Belliard to a lesser extent) was all about…and that's related to where my biggest problem lies in this whole ‘stand pat’ business: the timing of the deal(s). (as an aside, I don't for a second buy the "the market has changed and teams don't want rent-a-players anymore” argument here -- as if that makes the signing(s) out to be a shrewd attempt at making both guys more marketable). The signings signaled something, I'm just still not sure what. The signings took assets off the table. The signings sent Bowden into the gun fight with a knife, or with one arm tied behind his back or some such nonsense. It’s a blown opportunity to continue restocking the cupboards, as far as I’m concerned. Both deals could've easily been done tomorrow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-2689581607275358212007-08-01T17:24:00.000-04:002007-08-01T17:24:00.000-04:00I totally agree with your post. Everyone's bashin...I totally agree with your post. Everyone's bashing Bowden for not being able to make a deal and asking too much. Bullcrap. Did he ask too much when he unloaded Jose Vidro last winter? Well, I don't see Emiliano Fruto tearing up the league, so I guess not.<BR/><BR/>The real culprit for the Nats current sorry state is MLB, who left us with virtually nothing when it brought the team here. Bowden and co. have done a decent job drafting since '05, but it takes years to restock a system as thoroughly depleted as the Expos' was in 2004, especially if you also lack studs at the major league level to trade off. <BR/><BR/>Impatient fans seemed to want the team to make deals just to make deals, and that's the worst reason there is to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14311253.post-31775036232169917622007-08-01T15:16:00.000-04:002007-08-01T15:16:00.000-04:00That's a good post. I was with you until the final...That's a good post. I was with you until the final paragraph, more specifically the part about "pretending the Nats were passing up the next Ryan Zimmerman or Ross Detwiler in the process," a proposition I cannot remember anyone asserting yesterday. But I digress . . . <BR/><BR/>I think you're right in the sense that the Nats were handed an unsavory pot from which to deal. The remedy might reside more in (absence of) a Dmitri extension than in using Jon Rauch as a silver bullet. And I do not dispute at all Bowden's statement that the team didn't need to trade, since it's indisputable. But I reject the false choice of prospect superstars or not-worth-the-efforts, to the extent the team is trying to send that message. (I reject even further the message that the organization is filled with pitching prospects.)<BR/><BR/>You actually bring some substance to the table, something I neglected to do. That's a good list of comps and non-comps. Dan Wheeler is, of course, the greatest reliever of all time, so Tampa got a steal. Aside from that, I'm sure you can make some attempts to distinguish (the 'Stros were clearly looking for an immediate Ensberg replacement), but it's probably not worth the time.<BR/><BR/>I tried to capture my feelings last night, and the phrase that I came up with is "vaguely disappointed." I'll certainly grant you that "vague" is a long ways away from "firm criticism." And I think you amply demonstrate why my feeling was vague.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com