Rountdable #4 - Part 2 : Middle Infield

HARPER

You bring up the Boone Boys but that's just the undercard for the main event Triple Threat match; Belliard, Lopez, and Guzman. Three enter - 2 leave. My money is on Belliard and Guzman (who God as my witness won't reach .700 for his OPS this year.)

BASIL

I'm not so sure it's a three-man cage match, at least for now. Guzman seems safe: he's got the contract thing, the contract year thing, the (finally) healthy thing, and the (fluky) batting average thing. That's a lot of things!

Ultimately, I think Lopez has a little bit of an inside track on the starting job at second. Belliard has signed as a utility guy, agreed to an extension at least in part as a utility guy, and is paid like a utility guy. And, when it comes down to it, Manny's a very smart guy and he knows Cristian Guzman cannot be anyone's best option to lead off. Lopez might be.

CHRIS

If he's that smart, then he'll realize that Guzman isn't an answer at short either. If I had to bet, I'd say that Belliard and Lopez will have the most PA of the trio by the end of the season. Those two certainly give the team the best chance to win.

BASIL

Maybe so. But Manny's also street smart -- or so it seems -- and the line on the street is that Guzman finally has a chance to reclaim value on the deal. (Disregard for a moment that the deal was a loser for all time by August of 2005, if not earlier.) So, until Guzman disabuses the notion, I'm thinking he's given some pretty wide latitude (or longitude?).

One other factor -- maybe not the most important but it's out there -- is that Guzman is tied in at one position. Flop and Belliard, at least theoretically, can contribute at both short and second. That makes them more natural bench options.

However, your outlook on such things seems correct to me when you apportion plate appearances as you do. A lineup isn't carved on tablets, a season is long, and there's plenty of time to administer SS/2B PT in a reasonable manner, given the constraints of the roster.

HARPER

Yes, but everyone, the manager, the players, the fans, want a general sense of stability. Musical positions maybe the reality but certainly not the ideal. The starting nine on Opening Day will be taken as the hopeful starting nine for the Nats for 2008. And the 2008 Nats are still looking at promoting these guys for deadline deals. That leans toward a Guzman / Belliard starting duo. If they do well...Lopez may never see those ABs.

I guess is makes sense not to start Belliard if you think Lopez is the future, but do you? I don't.

CHRIS

I like Lopez' future a hell of a lot more than I like Belliard's, given the latter's age and cup size. (Up top, not down low)

Stability is great, but that shouldn't be the goal in and off itself. Look at the Harper's favorite team, the Yankees. Til Matsui, it was a roving hoard of left-fielders, and they managed ok. They seem to have had more success with instability, even!

The overall point behind what you're saying is right. The team doesn't have any upper-level infielders ready to go. There is no MI of the future. So maybe that's why it's important to see what Lopez can give you, since he's the youngest of the trio, and might need to fill the gap til someone like Ian Desmond can show up and disappoint in three years.

BASIL

I guess with Lopez it ultimately comes down to whether anyone can believe in him going forward anymore. If so, then I suppose he's worth the most playing time among the middle infielders (and certainly in a Lopez vs. Belliard head-on comparison). If not, well . . . he might as well have been non-tendered or dumped for a few pennies on the dollar. It's nice to win an arbitration hearing, but $4.9M is $4.9M, and there exists the (presumed) possibility that he could prove a distraction.

Not that Stan believes in team chemistry . . .

CHRIS

(Or spending money)

Yeah, it's a cheapshot. Deal!

BASIL

Or, in the case of almost any free agent out there, no deal.

(Whoops, forgot about OD Perez!)

HARPER

You must know that I wouldn't personally choose to start Guzman over
Lopez. I did compare him to the festering corpse of Honus Wagner and
all. Just trying to predict what is going to happen and this crystal
ball is seeing Belliard. Perhaps because Belliard is more
ball-shaped.

Roundtable #4 - Part 1 : Outfield

HARPER

Here we are finally. The beginning of the new season, full of more trite rebirth pieces than we'll read if Obama gets elected later this year. Baseball-wise it looks like everything is settled for the Nats so we can go on and discuss what people are really interested in: How sad was it to see Donkey Lips in that Amp commercial during the Super Bowl. Oh ok, I'll save that for the "Ugs and Kisses" Blog.

The Nationals are actually only set in a few places. Wide open in my mind are first base, middle infield, and the back of the rotation. Catcher may be an issue given LoDuca's injury status. Those OF slots are open in name (though I have trouble seeing Dukes, Escobar or some surprise guest moving into a starting role). There's always those last bench and bullpen slots. It should be an interesting spring. Should be. I'm hesitant only because this team does have a nasty habit of not making decisions, even for a season or three.

Let's start with what I think will be a fairly open and shut discussion. The OF will be Austin, Wily Mo, and Milledge, right? They aren't going to turn this into another "Everybody gets 2 weeks" situation like it's been forever, will they?

BASIL

I'd think so, or at least for now. The one issue I could see arising is a Wily Mo versus Elijah one. I've seen it said that WMP is not a bench type -- you have to play him every day for him to get in a groove and have the opportunity to blast a homer per week or so. I can see that reasoning. But I have a feeling he might find himself exposed in real, honest-to-goodness full-time play, and I have a feeling that Dukes is too good to be a fourth outfielder. Of course, there's also a chance WMP blossoms into a big-time power source and Dukes flops or . . . well, continues down a destructive path.

Other than that, I think what you have is typical fill-in time by the Machowiaks and Willie Harriseseseses of the world. Maybe Milledge gets off to a tough start, but Acta is apparently an admirer, so I doubt we're looking at 350+ at-bats from a bench type while Lastings is scouting out Columbus recording studios.

CHRIS

I think Basil makes some good points.

As distasteful as I find Dukes personally, the guy's got a world of baseball talent and by all rights could be starting on 3/4 of the teams in the league. The question, as we've seen, is whether his temperament will allow him to live up to that potential.

There are about 1,200 ABs to be divided amongst left and center. Give Milledge and Pena 400 at each and Dukes 200 per position, and the problem's solved. Certain managers are good about riding the 'hot hand' and maximizing the production. The problem Acta had last year is that his hot hand was more like a fist full of horse poop. I'm not sure there's any conceivable way of molding Langerhans, Logan and Casto into something acceptable.

BASIL

In some places a fist full of horse poop might be a delicacy, but in baseball terms we're talking about more like the Sally League. What the Nats had out in CF definitely wasn't major league-quality -- which was entirely foreseeable, since we're talking about several years of waiver wire and dump deal guys. That's why (assuming he is competent in CF) the Milledge deal is so important in this context: it breaks the cycle of assorted "flavors" in CF, which is just a kinder way of saying the management stopped tossing out substandard options and forcing the manager's hand to change as a result.

Not to get all "meta-" here, but it's kind of cool to witness transformative events like this for the franchise!

CHRIS

That's the impressive thing right there. Even Milledge as a 4th outfielder represents a substantial improvement over last year. This team wasted 150 LF ABs on Snelling, Casto, Langerhans, Fick, Restovich, and Watson. Of those, only Snelling had some sort of upside. And they wasted almost 450 combined ABs in CF on Logan and Langerhans.

That's 600 ABs that's going to be taken by competent major-league hitters with potential!

HARPER

We can all agree the Nats have better parts. When someone asks me where I think the OF will be in 2010 now I can say "In the majors" as opposed to "fighting for Indy league playing time" or "pouring cement foundations".

But just because the 3 little pigs finally are using bricks, doesn't mean they know how to build a house. I still will harbor my concerns about the proper distribution of playing time until I see one of these new guys allowed to ride out a 3-week long slump. For all the (completely fair) talk about how the Nats had nothing to work with the last few years they still were sitting out Ryan Church in favor of Nook Logan in early September last year. A bad April for Wily Mo and a good one for Justin Maxwell and I fear the cycle could start again.

The good news though, like you guys said, is that the talent is so much better that you have to think the right guy will have a hot stretch at the right time by chance if not by design.

One more quick OF point before we move on...Dukes on the major league squad; is this a given for the sake of being "mentored" or is there a real chance that he'll be in AAA because they want him to play everyday? (of course I ask because I've been thinking the latter...)

CHRIS

There's definitely a crunch for roster spots and Mackowiak and Harris are capable outfielders on guaranteed contracts, so sending Dukes down wouldn't be a complete shocker.

But isn't that the rationale for half of Dmitri's salary? Dukes doesn't exactly have a great reputation with the International League. It seems like the Nats are trying to get him to change the environment he's in to help make lifestyle changes, and throwing him back into the scene of so many of his crimes, while sensible on one level, is completely crazy on another.

BASIL

I agree with Chris. I imagine the Nats are planning to take an almost quasi-military approach with Dukes: "Here's Dmitri. He's your sergeant. Stick with your sergeant, watch what he does -- you'll live. Go off on your own and do something stupid -- you'll die." So to speak. That kind of arrangement, which the Nats have given every impression of intending, makes no sense if they don't execute it from the beginning of the regular season.

But that does leave a roster crunch. Doesn't it seem like this happens a lot? I don't know if it's a Bowden-specific thing, but on a yearly basis it seems like there's a line of double-parked players outside of the Panera Bread in Viera. I know we're on the outfield right now, but the infield thing filters to the outfield, because Machowiak and Harris and the Pete Orrs of the world are directly affected by all of it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I'd imagine the front four of the outfield will break camp intact.

CHRIS

Don't forget the Nepotista on your list!

BASIL

Need I ask: Which one?!

Or has nepotista evolved into a plural usage now too?

CHRIS

Fair point!

That's where looking at the contract status makes sense. They've already given guaranteed deals to a bunch of these players -- more than they have roster spots for, really -- so there's no chance of a Bret(t) making it at the expense of an Aaron. (Unless George -- Brett, not Boone -- comes out of retirement)

HARPER

But if we keep both, we can say we've got a "Boones Farm"! Ha! ha?

Bowden can't help but tinker with players that have options, and I know Dukes must have options. Plus, Jimbo loves going with the AAA "hot hand". If Dukes starts up here and isn't immediately successful then the next slap hitting OF that is smacking singles all over Columbus will take his place. If he's going to OH eventually why not at season's start?

Roundtable #3 : More Steroid Talk, Pitching, Fan Fest and Nick v Dmitri

BASIL

Okay, lots to discuss these days (Mitchell Report, Hall of Fame, big free agent signings, divisional races for next year), all at most tangentially related to the Nationals. So I'll try to phrase a question less tangentially related to the Nats:

Let's say it's May 15 of this coming season, and the Commissioner's Office issues a press release stating [Insert Your Favorite Nat] has tested positive for a Performance Enhancing Drug and will be spending the next fifty games doing something other than playing for the Nats. What would be your reaction? How upset would you be? Would that player continue to be your favorite Nat upon his return from the suspension?

(I realize this question might hinge somewhat on who that favorite Nat is and how important he is to the team. My favorite Nat of all time is Henry Mateo, the former utility infielder who couldn't throw because of an arm injury but who put up a .500 OBP for the Nats in 2005 - though in like two plate appearances!)

JON

I'll hop on this first. Just as you have a strange affinity for Mateo, I too have an unconventional love for both Guz and Alex Escobar. So in the theoretical you described (If Escobar's injuries were all tied to injecting himself with cow steroids or whatever), I'd have to say he'd cease to be my favorite player on the Nats. I can say this with relative certainty, as Clemens was my favorite player before the Report came out, and I can't say the same anymore. This probably has more to do with the fact that my love of the Rocket hinged on his durability and work ethic. So...

If Escobar got suspended for 50 games, I'd give him a second chance upon return. If he messed up again, then he would be forever banned from the Sports Pantheon of my heart. With him though, the suspension could coincide with a freak injury and the suspension could serve as the DL.

MISS CHATTER

I so totally want to jump in on this since my favorite ex-Nat, Gary Bennett, was named in the Mitchell Report (go ahead, mock me, I'm used to it at this point!). After recovering from the initial shock, I've had to give this a lot of thought and soul-searching. Since I don't have a current favorite Nat (not sure if that says more about me or the team), this is my only real point of reference at the moment.

I'd love to naively believe my favorite players league-wide are clean, but unfortunately, that's probably not the case. I mean c'mon, even Nook Logan was named in the report! It does tinge my view of players with sadness and disappointment, and even a bit of feeling let down, like I've been lied to and fooled. I do forgive Bennett and Logan somewhat for allegedly being "one time users" who were presumably desperate to try anything to get over injuries (or at least Bennett was). I'm also glad Bennett came clean immediately after the report was released, which lends some decency to his case. I'd like to hear what Paul Lo Duca has to say for himself. Bueller? Bueller?

I guess part of it does depend on the player. For instance, if it came out Ryan Zimmerman was a regular steroid user... whew, that would be a huge blow. I don't think I'd get over that one when he returned from his suspension. He embodies youth and innocence in a talented athlete and that perception would be shattered. On the other hand, if certain other players were proven to be users and suspended, I likely wouldn't be terribly surprised. I think (hope?) that as players become younger with better drug education and enforcement policies in place at the lower levels, this issue will eventually not be so epidemic as the older players head off into the sunset. I hope.

Should allegations and suspicions color Hall of Fame voting? Not that anyone we've named so far will ever have a shot... Except Clemens.

JON

At least to me, this whole Mitchell Report is more a condemnation of us then of baseball players. We've all (or at least most) built this reality in our mind that this sport is unlike all things in life. We think that it's fair, balanced, and incorruptible, and that all of our teams operate on the behalf of the fans, and do what's best for the game and the fans at all turns. The Report just made it evident that Baseball is just like life. Money governs and guides the decisions, from the Front Office to the Commish's office. We asked for our players to do super human things in the name of our entertainment, and they did it. We shouldn't be surprised then that they turned to chemistry to make it happen.

What this report did for me was shatter my naivety about sports. I don't love them any less, but I have a good degree of skepticism that I didn't have before.

BASIL

That's an interesting point. What's the old saying: "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin' "? Not to get into the subtleties of what exactly is cheating, but it would appear some people cheated, and then quite a few other people cheated. Condemning something while understanding the basis for getting into such behavior isn't in itself contradictory.

Anyway, to answer my own question somewhat briefly, . . . . well, I'm not sure who my favorite Nat is anymore. So let's just say it's Lo Duca. (I'm a big fan of the "my cell phone is TOAST!" line from the Mitchell Report.) My impression of him doesn't really change now that some of his behavior has been documented. I always perceived him as a hard-nosed player who wasn't exactly above doing anything and everything needed to exploit an edge in the game - the kind of thing that's perceived as admirable up and until the point where he does something deemed really WRONG. Well, he's done something really wrong, it would appear, and I'm not sure I care other than the potential discipline he faces. (And even then it might give Flores a better chance to develop; who knows?)

Incidentally, I have suspected PED use by other Nats I liked such as Wilkerson, Church, and Dmitri. Okay, not Dmitri. But who really knows, and without evidence supporting the suspicions, I guess it's best to let that bridge be crossed before we cross it . . . sorry for the John Maddenism there! (And Cathy, I can't believe I asked this question without once thinking of Passed Ball Bennett!)

Okay, next question: According to sources, the Nats are looking at some older, injuried-up vets to round out the last spot in the rotation. Good idea? If so, which vet(s) would you like to see sign with the team? Beyond that, is there even a coherent rotation at this point?

JON

I would have said Mark Prior a week ago, but that ship sailed. I would have said Matt Clement, but so did that one. To make Sutton happy, I'd give Jason Jennings a 1 yr deal. I'd really like Bartolo Colon, and get him on a diet and an incentive laden deal. That guy was an ACE not all that long ago.
All I do know is that rotation needs some help, and the catching lightning in a bottle thing works a lot better if you throw some injured formerly good players in than just guys who were always average.

BASIL

Yeah -- Prior gone, Clement gone. These guys are starting to sort themselves out. I agree about Colon for reasons the U.S.S. Mariner guys could state far better than me. He's a workhorse when healthy whose stats line, even in an awful season, doesn't seem to foreclose a comeback. It'd be a good gamble to see if we could turn him into something worthwhile in a trade later on (if only to reverse the Sizemore et al trade). If Colon's too costly, I think Jennings is an interesting way to go.

Your point about pitchers with established ability is well-taken. Bowden didn't do too badly in putting together a patchwork staff last year (though the big home park made it "better" than it seemed), but I'd like us to get past pigeonholing guys best suited to relief or the minors (like Hanrahan) into hopes for the starting rotation.

JON

I remember discussing with Kyle (who is the other guy who writes Nats Report) the plethora of pitchers we had, and we didn't know how we'd fit all these guys in. And then it donned on me that I was falling into the old trap of overvaluing the home team boys. Tim Redding? I actually want him as a number 4? I snapped out of it, but it was weird for a little bit there.

MISS CHATTER

Exactly, on getting a pitcher with a history of being good rather than someone who had a cup of coffee or a meager career in the majors prior (haha - get it? Prior?). I don't know who to target at this point, though. So what is our coherent rotation as it stands? Shawn Hill, John Patterson, Jason Bergmann, Matt Chico (?), Reddacsikippardannan? Let's see... veteran... veteran... I know, let's sign Roger Clemens to a four month contract! Oh wait, he may serve his contract out suspended or in a courtroom. Moving on... When will Freddy Garcia be over labrum surgery (ah, June)? Then we'd have two "Chief" pitchers!

BASIL

Yeah, it's sort of the same mess as last season's mess, except the guys we have now are generally the guys who replaced the chaff from last year, and some of those guys (Redding? Chico?) will become this year's chaff, leaving Dennis Tankersley as the great rotation savior or something. Ah, a bit pessimistic today, I know ...


Okay, so a new question without a proper transition: According to Barry Svrluga, the Nats are planning something or other as a replacement-caravan, conveniently held at things like an auto show. Now, I'll be upfront about this and say:

(1) I live in Richmond, so I have no real standing to complain; and

(2) meeting players in person isn't the type of thing that thrills me, so I don't really care.

But not everyone lives in a secondary market like I do, and not everyone thinks like I do. So the question is simple enough - are the Nats sufficiently reaching out to their fanbase, or are they sort of playing off/taking for granted the opening of the new ballpark?

MISS CHATTER

This is normally my beat, so... My diplomatic answer? I'm waiting to see a full schedule with appearances, hoping what's been posted isn't quite complete. For some reason, I was under the impression they were having a regular fan-fest for the first time ever, but I guess that's not to be. I know the PR folks work hard, so I can only imagine their hands were tied for whatever reasons we may never know. I like the car show (vroom vroom!), so I may try to make that one!

Even though Svrluga's been making fun of last year's Nook Logan and Mike O'Connor filled appearances, I enjoyed the lack of overwhelming throngs of people and getting to joke around with those who were there. Plus, I met Don Sutton before he called his first Nationals game! Can't beat that! Personally, I'd like to see some of the new guys appear at these events, particularly Lastings Milledge and Lo Duca, to get a glimpse of them before the season starts, but I guess we'll see what happens. Heck, why not bring Stan Kasten and Jim Bowden out for a fan Q&A?

While I admire the club's philanthropic and community-based events, I don't quite qualify those as "fan-oriented" -- it's often awkward to show up at events like blood drives and health center visits. So to answer your question... yes and no. I think the Nationals try to reach out to their fanbase more by proxy than directly, but I'm okay with that. Who wants to stand in line and battle hundreds of more pushy autograph seekers only to get two seconds with worn-out jaded players flexing cramped hands after holding a pen for hours? There's no quality give and take in that. Personally, I find the smaller events more rewarding. On the other hand, huge events like the season ticket holder picnic make fans (many of whom invest considerable money in the team) feel somewhat appreciated and part of the process. So there's my typical wishy-washy answer.

Oh, I have to add that the "Ladies Night" events (which guys can go to) they did last season were like fanfests to me, so it's not like they haven't done anything for fans.

My turn for a question without a proper transition. Jim Bowden says:

As we walk into Spring Training, Dmitri Young is our first baseman. He deserves it. He finished in the top 10 in hitting. He improved defensively and his leadership skills in the clubhouse were phenomenal. So he is obviously the first baseman.
I talked to Nick Johnson and he is healthy. He is already running the bases. He is doing extremely well. He feels great. I think we can all be optimistic there is a good possibility that he comes into Spring Training at 100 percent, which will create good competition. It's healthy for a club.

If Nick Johnson truly is 100% and back to playing form, what do you think of Dmitri Young getting first base over him, presumably relegating Johnson to Fick's role from last year of a late inning defensive replacement?

JON

I think there's no way to deny Da Meat his rightful position as our starting first baseman. He was a model teammate, not to mention that he hit the cover off the ball. Nick can work his way back in, and if and when he ever totally heals (I have my doubts), then the spot is his, and Meat is the #1 bat of the bench. This is the best possible situation for the Nats. Whatever happens, the bench gets stronger, and in the NL, the bench is just as important as relief pitching.

BASIL

If Johnson is healthy (yes, if), relegating him to the Fick role (or something similar) would be a pretty vast misuse of Johnson's talents. Young earned a lot of respect and appreciation for his comeback year, but ultimately he's not the day-in, day-out offensive contributor that a healthy Nick Johnson is, and Young's switch-hitting at least theoretically makes him a really nice bench option.

Dmitri was adamant about coming in last season to be a starter, however. The caveat was "for however long Nick is out," but that was before Dmitri reestablished himself and got the longer-term deal. That situation does bear some watching and, potentially, some skillful managing by Manny.


MISS CHATTER

I agree with Basil. Not to mention, circus music doesn't play in his head when Nick Johnson is chasing down a pop foul and the fans hold their breath, entertaining as it may be! Johnson probably will need to work his way back in, so this decision is likely months away beyond spring training, but yes, it will require some skillful managing on Acta's part. What I don't understand is all the people still talking about putting Young in the outfield? I thought someone in the Nats org already put the kibosh on that rumor? Plus, they have a perfectly acceptable outfield at the moment with far better range than Young would provide.

Roundtable #2: The Mitchell Report and/or Paul LoDuca

HARPER

This week was supposed to be the calm after the storm. Ha! The Nats immediately jumped to fill the hole that was sort-of left at catcher after they traded away Brian Schneider by signing Paul Lo Duca. This must have been an early Christmas gift for the bloggers since one could say a lot more about Lo Duca's acquisition than the "Younger, cheaper, and better in the long run! That's a good deal!" thoughts that pretty much summed up every Winter Meeting deal. While we were winding down the discussion on Lo Duca in came the Mitchell report yesterday where, surprise, Paul LoDuca is all over it. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

Does the Mitchell report change anything in your mind? Was the signing a good deal before the report? Is it a good deal today? Did anyone tell Nook Logan that you don't rub the HGH on your bat like pine tar? Are you ruined for baseball forever? (Sure hope not because that will make for a real short roundtable)

BRANDON

I'll start with my reaction to the Mitchell Report in general and then get to Lo Duca. I didn't really think that anything earth-shattering came out of that report. Sure, some names might have surprised some of us, but no one who's followed baseball at all for the last 20 years can be shocked that there has been widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The Mitchell report was a classic case of an organization punishing itself in order to avoid a harsher punishment by an external body. In this case, Selig wanted to finally take his medicine over the steroids flap and get it all over with. Remember, when this Mitchell report was commissioned back in early 2006 Congress was hauling players up to testify left and right. Sosa, Palmiero and McGwire had memorably awkward/embarrassing performances on Capitol Hill and the writing was on the wall. Selig knew that if MLB didn't take action, Congress would, especially heading into an election year. So here we are. It will be interesting to see what, if any, lasting impact this report has on the game and on particular players.

JAMMINGECONO

More than anything, on a personal level I'm sad for baseball. A great game has been tarnished in the public eye. While I think the long-term damage to MLB will be minimal, and that this cathartic moment was necessary, it nonetheless hurts to see your heroes hauled up and pilloried by the court of public opinion.

I agree that nothing come out of the report that we didn't expect, except maybe that the whispering campaign against Clemens being made explicit. If there is a silver lining to the whole affair, it's that the report shifted the focus of steroids in baseball away from Barry Bonds and onto the sport as a whole. If the union is smart, they will put out a joint press release with the commissioner's office embracing the report's recommendations lock, stock, and barrel -- even if they reserve the right to criticize the naming of names.

One thing that bugs me though is the thought that records outside of the Steroid Era are any less tainted. Who's to say that Pete Rose's hit record, Rickey Henderson's stolen base record, or Nolan Ryan's strikeout record weren't accomplished with the help of amphetamines, for example. This is why I'm against the whole "asterisk" idea in general. This is an old argument though, so I'd rather no rehash it again.

BRANDON

I agree that the game has been tarnished but I think any shock or negative reaction from fans has already been registered years ago. I don't think we'll suddenly see lower attendance at MLB games or anything like that, but maybe I'd feel differently if any of my favorite players were on that list.

You make a good point that it is appropriate that the locus of this controversy has shifted from all-Barry, all-the-time to a more broad spectrum of players. What I also find interesting is who ISN'T on the list. Think of all the guys who are just as good as Bonds, Clemens and Tejada who, apparently, have not had to resort to performance-enhancing drugs to excel in the Major Leagues. I'm thinking of Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, Jr., Randy Johnson, etc... It would be different if all or nearly all of the game's best players had achieved success because of drugs, but the names on the list are a mixed bag of the best players of our time and relatively mediocre guys like Nook Logan. We should find solace in the fact that so many have managed to excel without resorting to drugs. Of course, we can't know whether or not the Mitchell list is the definitive list of all drug users; indeed we must expect that it is only a subset.

Still, I think there are lessons to be drawn from youngsters who may be thinking that steroids and HGH are a one-way ticket to success. The message seems to be that there is simply no substitute for raw talent. You can take all the steroids and hormones you want but if you're not a skilled baseball player you will never make it to the top. This is why I have trouble with asterisk suggestions. Bonds may have been on the juice but he would have never hit anywhere near that number of home runs if he wasn't really good at hitting them in the first place. Clemens may have bought some of his remarkable longevity from drugs, but no drug can make a pitcher that dominant by itself.

JAMMINGECONO

I don't want to detract from getting to the impact of the report on current Nats, but for a future roundtable, I wonder if it wouldn't make an interesting diversion to discuss the impact on the Hall of Fame of the Steroid Era. If the bar for entry into the Hall for admitted or suspected juicers (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, presumably Clemens) has been raised, is the converse also true? Has the bar been lowered for good-but-not-great players who are above suspicion? I'm thinking of guys like Thome, Schilling, Glavine, etc. (just to name a few).

HARPER


The Hall of Fame voting will almost certainly be one at some point in the winter. The Nats can't keep signing/trading for interesting players every week...

You guys sound reasoned and fair about the report. No wonder you're not officially sports radio talking heads. I think my general feeling is one of disappointment over the whole steroid situation. Not over the players so much as with the helplessness baseball has to do anything about the past. You can pinpoint users, but not all and not specific time frames, and without that information you have to throw up your hands at the whole era.

Jamming's point about the amphetamines is fair, but the same thing applies. Not sure who, not sure when, oh well. I think the interesting thing we might see going forward is more of a push not to compare guys across eras. Any question of who is the best of all-time will inevtiably lead to steroid conversation which will then lead to uppers, the exclusion of blacks, the influx of asian players, etc. etc.

Of course this era is here and now so we're the ones who have to deal with it's consequences. One of which is having players on your team who are known "cheats". The Nats have one Paul Lo Duca, but he's a big one brought in not only for his offense ( I suppose) but to be a vocal leader. How's that working for ya now, Kasten?

BRANDON

I'm not really that bent up about him appearing on this report because I have zero emotional attachment to him as a fan at this point. The Nats just picked him up two days before the report, and now he's on the steroid list. Meh.

He's been brought in on a one-year contract to keep the catcher's spot warm for Jesus Flores. It will be a nice bonus if Lo Duca's offensive capabilities make him not be the automatic out that Schneider seemed to be at times last year, but he's really just passing through DC on the downside of his career. Look at his $5 million salary for 2008 as the price for bringing Jesus Flores along slowly instead of tossing him right into the starting role. Seems like a good deal to me. Much has been made of Lo Duca's alleged clubhouse malfeasance and now he's allegedly a steroid cheat, but Jim Bowden is paid to put together a winning ballclub, not hand out merit badges.

I feel similarly about Nook Logan. So he's an HGH cheat, huh? Oh well. He is in all likelihood finished as a Nat after a lackluster 2007 campaign and an offseason that has brought a surplus of outfielders as it is: Dukes, Pena, Kearns, Milledge, Langerhans are all in the mix. I already had a low opinion of the Nook's abilities, so his exposure as an HGH cheat doesn't change much.

All this being said, I definitely felt a sense of relief as I scanned the list that none of the "core" Nats players were named. I would be disappointed as hell if Ryan Zimmerman, Chad Cordero or Nick Johnson had turned up on that list, because I like those guys and wouldn't want to be given a reason not to. I would have felt the same way about Brian Schneider and Ryan Church. We Nats fans are lucky in that our only real current connection to this mess is a journeyman catcher who's unlikely to be around for more than a season or two.

HARPER

It's a relief but it's not a surprise. There are only 34 active players in the report and the majority of those came from Radomski, who was understandably focused on NY given his position with the Mets. This is only one path for PEDs and it happened not to go through the Nats area. Plus the Nats are a young team that got younger this offseason. A lot of these guys have been subject to the more strict minor league policy that's been around since 2002.

As for Lo Duca the player, it's funny because I find myself becoming the mirror universe version of 2007 Harper (I should grow a goatee or at least get a cool scar). Last year tossing a decent amount of money at a veteran player was what I wanted to see. This off-season though, I've gotten behind the youth movement. Now there is enough talent here to try to play out a season with what's on hand and not have a strong chance of a ~65 win season. Now I would have preferred to sign someone that would have made Flores a part-timer not a back-up.

Oh well, I guess it's Lo Duca or bust (or Lo Duca busted) in 2008. Things could be worse.

JAMMINGECONO

I'm ambivalent with LoDuca. I do think that Flores could use more seasoning. At the same time, I think we could have gotten similar production and defense for less money and without the steroid/gambling/women baggage by going after Estrada, Olivo, Damian Miller, or any of a number of lfree-agent eague-average catchers. The best thing that can be said about LoDuca is that the Nats are only on the hook for one year.

Roundtable #1: Winter Meetings

HARPER

We thought, or at least I did, that the Nats would be lots of talk and no action in the Winter Meetings. Instead, they made tons of moves and unlike signing Vinny Castilla or Cristian Guzman (brought up to simply remind you what Bowden can do when left to his own devices, since fans are getting too giddy about him in my mind) all of them seem pretty good on the surface. A rundown in some order:

• Traded Ryan Church and Brian Schneider to the Mets for Lastings Milledge.
• Traded Glenn Gibson to the Rays for Elijah Dukes
• Signed Aaron Boone (1yr, 1 million)
• Traded Jonathan Albaladejo to the Yankees for Tyler Clippard
• Locked up Wily Mo (1yr 2 million with an option for a second year that'll make the total 4 or 7 million depending on how much they still love eachother)
• Brought back Ryan Langerhans (for all intents and purposes, 1yr 500K), and Ray King (minor-league deal)
• Got Matt Whitney and Garrett Guzman in the Rule V draft (They do know they don't have to pick someone, right?)
• And most importantly they brought in "the Tank"! Dennis Tankersley (minor league), which I think is totally cool because he had an infinite ERA in 2003. (seriously though I think he's going to "get it" one of these years and have 3 years of middle brow starting pitching. Why not with the Nats?)

Lot to talk about. I'll start out by saying I think they'll miss Church and Schneider in 2008 more than they think. Church was a decent everyday player who I'm going to make not-so-crazy statement #1 about and declare that he will outperform Milledge next year hands down. Milledge has yet to play a full season, and did you see what he did against righties last year? .250 / .304 /.395. Playing everyday we'll be seeing more of that. Schneider was nothing great, but have you seen what's available? Finding yourself stuck with a horrible offensive catcher is pretty damn easy. If Flores doesn't immediately get better or the Nats find a lefty platoon bat for him, fans could be pining for Brian Schneider, not 2007 Brian Schneider mind you, but a Brian Schneider. (Flores v righties last year .220 / .276 /.297).

BASIL

Those are valid concerns, and they make sense in that even an upgrade from the status quo will present concerns. You gain your independence, and you have to worry about forming a workable governance model. You win the lottery, and you suddenly have to think about tax consequences.

All told, however, you'd rather have independence and/or several million dollars, and likewise you'd rather have Lastings Milledge even if it means patching through the consequences. We'll have to see how Milledge does against righties; his minor league splits, to the extent they matter, don't seem to indicate a particular weakness. Hopefully, we haven't acquired the short end of a platoon!

As for Schneider, isn't it sort of strange that he was praised for handling a young staff when there weren't really that many youngsters in '07 but he could've been charged with a potentially younger staff in '08 had he not been traded? I have no real reason to doubt that he was indeed a good handler of pitchers, but at the same time it seems like Schneider was afforded a reputation boost by Nichols Law of Catcher Defense: he couldn't hit anymore, so he must've been just short of a demi-god behind the plate. He was an Original Nat (and a popular one at that), so it'll be strange to see him gone from the roster, but how hard will it be for Flores and some crappy patch-veteran to approximate the 77 OPS+ or whatever Schneider put up? I'm not a LoDuca fan, but if you can luck into a .310 half-season from him, you can probably get something interesting in return at the deadline.

HARPER

Definitely this is a deal you do 100 times out of 100 if you are in the Nats position (halfway back from nowhere). But the idea that's floating around that adding Milledge, Dukes, and Boone will make the offense better in 2008 is something I don't see. The offense will likely be better in 2010 because of these deals, that's why you make them, but in 2008 if the Nats are more potent the names Johnson, Zimmerman, and Pena will be the reasons. Along with the smaller park...

CHRIS

The smaller park is key. I definitely think that's going to have a much larger impact than we're expecting simply because RFK is so extreme.

As far as the moves not upgrading the 2008 team, I'm going to take the contrary view. They're better off short and long term.

Look at what the Nats got out of their outfield production last year. Left fielders batted .245/ .316/ .396. CFers hit .255/ .321/ .382. Trading for Dukes, Milledge and with Pena on the team takes away the 100 ABs they wasted on Snelling and Kasto and the 300+ they threw at Logan. The Nats are replacing that (on paper, of course) with actual major-league production, a healthy bump-up for the offense.

Yes, losing Schneider's probably going to hurt more than you'd expect, but if they do get Johny Estrada, at worst the catcher's offense will improve slightly, with a big upgrade if he comes closer to his career averages.

HARPER

Hmmm, that's true - the right FA catcher signing I'd flip-flop on the no offensive improvement behind the plate, but that's still speculation. For all we know they could just try to run with Chad Moeller, he's so bad a hitter he must be Johnny Bench behind the plate.

That 3rd OF slot will (I'd hate to see what those numbers look like without Church's contributions) almost have to improve if Dukes starts (despite Boswell's insane ramblings about Dukes being a poor man's Austin Kearns) but are we certain that he will start? They still said they are looking for a "true leadoff hitter", brought back Langerhans, still have Logan. They have a history of playing hot potato with OFs. I'm not counting on 140+ games from him just yet.

Plus the fact that, you know, Dukes's a contemptible person that may very well bite the head off a bald eagle on opening day. I know others NFA, Nats Report tried to look on the bright side, but I this is the one move I don't make. Especially since it wasn't for nothing but for a pitching propect. Not a great one, and one that was replaced immediately by Tyler Clippard, but if I'm the Nats I'm taking the quantity approach here.

BASIL

I think you do the Dukes deal 10 times out of 10, too. Well, maybe 8 times out of 10. You don't have to feel good about it -- part of what makes us blessedly human is feeling bad or even outraged about it -- but the object is to acquire talent. And Dukes has talent. I'm fine with it, provided there really is a zero-tolerance policy attached.

The aspect I'm a little cynical about is the "Dmitri as role model" angle, but I admit I'm often cynical for the sake of being cynical.

HARPER

Except right now the object isn't just to acquire talent it's also to building a fanbase and you have to factor that in. The wrong player at the wrong time could set that back and Elijah is just the type to be that wrong player. But I guess that's me talking as a Yankee fan who had to sit through several years of "I hope the Yankees win the game and Roger Clemens gets hit in the head with a baseball and is forced to retire to breed more kids he can name Kirby or Khaki or Kinky or..." Having a player on your team you don't like isn't fun.

I also don't mean to be overly negative. I think the Elijah deal is the only one the Nats did that I don't do and even that is a completely defensible move since it is a winner talent wise.

CHRIS

I think the concerns about developing a fan base are often overblown, to some extent. What's going to bring people in, especially in a town that most regard as a transient one, is winning. And on the off chance that Dukes doesn't murder anyone or sire four more children AND lives up to his potential, he could help do just that -- or at least be a nice stopgap 'til someone like Michael Burgess is ready in 3 years.

HARPER

What's with all this Elijah love? Certainly, Elijah's impact on the fanbase will be minimal, especially in the long run, but it's is another factor to account into the trade. I don't think that you can look at this trade as simply a talent swap and that's why I come out on the other side.

But it's just one deal. Let's talk about ones we can all agree are great (I think), like the Tyler Clippard deal. I can see him stepping into the back of the rotation next year. For what? A reliever that was gotten for nothing and can be easily replaced. That's a deal.

BASIL

Sure the goal is to acquire all the talent we can get. Primarily because we don't have much of it right now. If the "think tank" were to turn around and trade Kearns tomorrow, then I'd be much more inclined to share your view on the trade. But nothing is being shuffled for Elijah's benefit at this point; he'll have to earn quite a bit of capital (not Capitol, Chris!) first.

Moving on to the Clippard trade, it's obviously a very good one. But I don't know if we can pencil in Clippard with a rotation spot yet. After a marvelous year at Trenton in '06, he was pretty meh at SWB last year. It was only a half-season, and there seemed to be a BABIP-type issue, but nevertheless I'm reminded of something Bill James (big surprise!) noted about a pitcher a decade or so ago: the pitcher thrived against more talented yet less experienced hitters from Double-A but struggled against less talented yet more experienced hitters from Triple-A. It's not a fault, per se, but it's a sign (potentially) that Clippard needs a little more savvy or, to be cliched about it, more "seasoning."

Or maybe not. Chico seemed more seasoned than talented at times last season.

CHRIS

I'm with Basil. My expectations of Clippard are low. Hey, you can never be disappointed that way! Apparently the Yankees tweaked with his mechanics a bit, leading to some of the struggles. We'll find out either way. The bats have a pretty good way of telling you how a guy can do. (Although getting out of the NL and from the Yankees infield defense can't hurt -- although this could probably be a glass houses and stones kind of comment)

Overall, how can any Nationals fan not be happy at this point? They added a decent batch of long-term talent without giving up a ton of value. The only question mark is Dukes' attitude, but maybe a change of scenery, getting away from some of the bad influences in his hometown will help. If they don't, they cut him.

But the puzzle is only half complete. Catcher's still a gaping hole, and while middle infield and starting pitching aren't holes, per se, there's definitely potential (and budget room!) to upgrade both. It's been a good start.

HARPER

On Clippard, I don't think he'll ever be anything more than a mid-rotation starter but I like him better than Balester or Lannan, the two I see most likely to fight for those lower end rotation slots in Spring Training next year. That's why I see him on the opening day roster...but we'll see.

You're right Chris. Nats fans have to be feeling good right now. In two years they've made remarkable progress in the minor league system and the recent actions help fill in the "guys ready right now" gap that the team had thanks to the joke the system was for the past few years. They might still be a year or two away but they've just added interest to the next couple years beyond looking at minor league box scores and waiting for those drafts to bear major league fruit.