Master Index of Archived Threads


How bad are the Nationals?

Edgy DC Mar 22 2007 11:20 PM

I don't know. I just read they picked up Pedro Astacio today. National disaster By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports March 22, 2007 VIERA, Fla. – Sometimes there are those telephone conversations you wish took place face to face. The person on the other end is so incredulous, so frustrated, so spitting angry that you know he is sporting a look – like the worst bitter-beer face known to man – words can't do justice. "Where does all this 130-loss stuff come from, all this silliness about the '62 Mets?" said Washington Nationals president Stan Kasten, the example in this particular case. Kasten is unhappy. See, the Nationals probably are not going to be good this year. They have a chance to be really not good. Some believe they will be really, really not good. Like worst-team-ever not good. And people around baseball love to exaggerate, so bad turns into really bad turns into historically bad, and numbers start getting assigned, one scout positing the Nationals could be worse than the '62 New York Mets, who went 40-120, another suggesting it may be 130 losses, and when that gets into the media, well, people like Kasten, who runs the team Al Lerner purchased for $450 million last year, gets defensive. "I don't see what they're seeing," he said. Well, judging on past performance alone, there is some merit to the Nats-will-stink movement. Their projected starting rotation was 2-13 last season. Oh, no, not their No. 5 starter. Their entire rotation. John Patterson was hurt and went 1-2. Shawn Hill spent most of the season at Double-A and went 1-3 in the major leagues. Matt Chico split the season between Class A and Double-A and will make his big-league debut this year. Jerome Williams went 0-2. Tim Redding went 0-6. The quintet pitched 120 1/3 big-league innings, or less than Jered Weaver, who wasn't called up for good until July. And that does not including Jason Simontacchi, who had won a rotation spot before getting injured. Simontacchi spent last season in the independent Atlantic League, which is about as far from the big leagues as Chico's Bail Bonds. Their everyday lineup is better. Third baseman Ryan Zimmerman should be one of the 10 best players in the National League within a couple years. Right fielder Austin Kearns and second baseman Felipe Lopez have All-Star talent. Catcher Brian Schneider is an underrated leader. And the bullpen features Chad Cordero, one of the majors' best closers, and the 6-foot-11 Jon Rauch, who was tremendous last season. Point is, as really, really bad as the Nationals could be, it's really, really, really hard for a team to lose more than 75 percent of its games, which is what it would take to eclipse the '62 Mets. In an NL East division where the champion could easily win less than 90 games, the Nationals aren't stuck in the type of meatgrinder that has shredded the Kansas City Royals to the tune of four 100-loss teams in five years. And even if they were, the difference between 100 and 120 – or 130 for that matter – is almost too enormous to consider. "Say 140," Schneider said. "Doesn't matter to us." However laissez-faire Schneider is about Washington's futility being resistant, the whispers have permeated the Nationals. On first-year manager Manny Acta's desk is a paragraph from the story that first referenced the '62 Mets. Someone just printed out the copy and anonymously left it in his office. Acta is saying the right things. "We're not as far as a lot of people say," and "It's a lot easier to turn this team around and win," and "Anything is possible." Look at the Florida Marlins last year. Preseason shoo-ins for 100-plus losses, they were in wild-card contention until mid-September and finished 78-84. "I want better things to happen here," said Acta, who saw the Nationals plenty last season as third-base coach of the Mets. "They didn't even play .500." Such thoughts are typical with D.O.A. teams. Manufactured hope replaces realism, and it's got to, at least until the Nationals' rebuilding plan takes root. Kasten devoted the organization to developing talent the same way his Atlanta Braves dynasty did. He wants to seize the expanding international market – particularly Asia – and has taken advantage of his proximity to world embassies by joining foreign emissaries for dinner or bringing them to RFK Stadium. Twelve of the Nationals' top 15 prospects, as ranked by Baseball America, have joined the organization since he took over, he's proud to point out. Of course, the magazine still rated the Nationals' farm system the worst in the major leagues, which makes the their predilection toward youth a risky maneuver: Can they fill their new $600 million stadium, set to open along the Anacostia River a year from now, with a team sacrificing for the future? "We're going in one direction at 100 mph, and that's because I don't want to do this again," Kasten said. "I don't want to be one of those franchises that rebuilds over and over." The Nationals have finished in last place three consecutive seasons, and this year couples that prospect with nearly a 50 percent cut in payroll, from $62 million to an estimated $33 million. First baseman and cleanup hitter Nick Johnson still can't run after breaking his femur last season, forcing Acta to shift his lineup accordingly, which, naturally, means more lumps than a year-old box of sugar. Or so you'd think. "You can look at our team and our defense and our pitching staff," Schneider said, "and you go ahead and ask around the league: Teams hate playing us." Such a supposition seemed fishy, so we did ask around the league: Do teams really hate playing the Nationals? Each NL personnel man uttered some derivation of what one scout put best: "Yeah, like we hate eating chocolate cake." And yet when pressed further, about whether the Nationals could be 120-loss bad, the scout scoffed. "No," he said. "No one's that bad." Baseball is funny that way. The Nationals brought 72 players into their camp this year, 37 of them pitchers. Both are staggering numbers for a 25-man roster and 11- or 12-man pitching staff, numbers of panic. Then again, teams can do miraculous things. Kasten built one. "What's always a good reminder for me – and I'm not making a prediction – the last time I had a team projected to finish last was my 1991 (Atlanta Braves) team," he said. "That team lost in extra innings in the seventh game of the World Series. "It's not a prediction. But it does illustrate the kind of things that could happen as a season unfolds." When he says this, no longer does he show the incredulousness, the frustration, the anger – and certainly no panic. Stan Kasten sounds hopeful, and right then the phone suffices, because a man who says such things can show only one kind of face: The smirk of a true believer. Jeff Passan is a national baseball writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Jeff a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

smg58 Mar 23 2007 08:45 AM Re: How bad are the Nationals?

]In an NL East division where the champion could easily win less than 90 games, Um, excuse me? The Nationals lost Soriano and don't have Nick Johnson to start the season, so they're probably going to be worse than last year. Historically bad? It's far too soon to discuss that.

MFS62 Mar 23 2007 09:18 AM

Well, at least its not Jose Lima. Later

Edgy DC Mar 23 2007 09:18 AM

It was just bizarre here in DC as the free agent pool drained down and they still wouldn't dip into it for some experienced schmoe to add to their staff. You could practically here the voices in the streets crying out for some Trachsel. Of course, they could be fooling us all and have five prospects lined up to blow our minds.

TheOldMole Mar 23 2007 09:39 AM

Hey, my grandkids are Nationals fans.

Frayed Knot Mar 23 2007 09:47 AM

The other problem is that their farm system is pretty barren at the moment according to those who follow that sort of thing. Kasten and co have a lot of work to do down there.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 23 2007 09:50 AM

I predict they'll be often praised for their "scrappyness." Seriously, Manny Acta has to know winning 81 games will get him a manager of the year trophy.

Edgy DC Mar 23 2007 10:02 AM

Winning 81 games will get him to the top of the list of potential replacements for Joe Torre.

seawolf17 Mar 23 2007 02:19 PM

No, having Don Mattingly killed will get him to the top of that list. I liked the Marlins last year. Everyone said they would lose 100 games, but I thought they were too young and hungry for that. I really don't see that with the Nats this year, though. They might just be awful.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 23 2007 02:24 PM

I didn't say the Marlins would lose 100, I said they'd lose 110! We were very fortunate to get those guys so often so early last year.

metirish Mar 23 2007 02:33 PM

Aaron Sele would probably get a job in that rotation,he'd certainly help them in the quest to lose 120 plus games.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 23 2007 02:35 PM

Nothing against the Nationals (or Manny Acta) but I'd love to see them lose 121 games. I've always wanted to see the 1962 Mets lose that record. The Tigers really got my hopes up a few years ago.

Edgy DC Mar 23 2007 02:41 PM

I don't know. Another team losing 121 games won't make the the 1962 Mets not have lost 120. I want that legacy downgraded, but I want it downgraded by the Mets.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 23 2007 02:57 PM

Of course not. But they'll no longer hold the title of "Worst Team Ever" I enjoyed seeing Roger Maris and Lou Gehrig's records broken. I'd enjoy seeing this one broken too.

metirish Mar 23 2007 03:05 PM

I remember when the Tigers made a run at the record that some in the media thought it would be a shame if they lost more than the '62 Mets because those Mets were "lovable losers" while the Tigers were just losers,were the Mets considered lovable losers at the end of the 1962 season?

Johnny Dickshot Mar 23 2007 03:12 PM

I get the impression the writers liked the fact that the Mets historically struggled more than the players, definitely, and also the fans. One Met Myth that probably shouldn't endure as well as it has is this idea that they couldn't have gotten off the ground any other way, that they had to be the worst team ever. The fact that there was NL bball again in NYC would have drawn fans anyway, good and/or bad.

G-Fafif Mar 23 2007 10:43 PM

I rooted hard for the Tigers to remain inept a little longer than they did. Let somebody else wear the ass crown, as it were. A reasonably professional 60-102 probably wouldn't have harmed the '62 Mets as a desirable business entity, but if you think about it, do you ever hear about the '62 Astros or '69 Royals or '93 Marlins, et al? Maybe if we were Astros, Royals or Marlins fans we'd say "of course," but the '62 Mets do stand out among first-year expansion teams. Should a team come along and do what the '03 Tigers failed to do and lose those last few damn games to get to 39-123, the '62 Mets will still be the '62 Mets.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 23 2007 10:46 PM

I felt awful for the Tigers and their fans and very much wanted to see them lose as few as possible. The only team I'd like to see break the record is the Yankees.

SteveJRogers Mar 23 2007 10:48 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Of course not. But they'll no longer hold the title of "Worst Team Ever" I enjoyed seeing Roger Maris and Lou Gehrig's records broken. I'd enjoy seeing this one broken too. Maris still holds the records in many people's eyes though But thats another topic...

SteveJRogers Mar 23 2007 11:08 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I get the impression the writers liked the fact that the Mets historically struggled more than the players, definitely, and also the fans. One Met Myth that probably shouldn't endure as well as it has is this idea that they couldn't have gotten off the ground any other way, that they had to be the worst team ever. The fact that there was NL bball again in NYC would have drawn fans anyway, good and/or bad. I think Casey Stengel had more to do with that than anything though. I never heard the myth about that they had to start that way. But the 62 Mets were a complete by-product of the crap that the NL gave them in the expansion draft and an over reliance on ex Dodgers and Giants.

Nymr83 Mar 23 2007 11:31 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Maris still holds the records in many people's eyes though But thats another topic... the argument that Maris never broke Ruth's record (because he got 162 games instead of 156) is stronger than the argument that Bonds never broke it because he might have cheated. i'd love to see the cheaters kicked out of baseball, but leave the record books alone before we get anasterick next to everything

Edgy DC Mar 24 2007 12:34 AM

My thinking is that, as long as it happened, it might as well be such a key part of the story. I don't believe for a moment that it had to happen, but the miracle of 1969 is all the more miraculous considering the legendary ineptitude of 1962. When they are done winning their tenth pennant in a row in 2016, part of the story will be that they've come farther than any other team ever.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 24 2007 06:19 AM

Houston had the same crap available to them as the Mets did, but didn't start off as horrible. The 1962 Mets never had a chance to be contenders, but the blame for how bad they turned out has to go to the people who selected the players. They could have done better. On the other hand, the Mets got to the World Series in only seven years. It took the Astros 43 years. So in the long run, the Mets have fared much better.

Methead Mar 27 2007 09:20 AM

Pics from the construction site of their new ballpark right [url=http://www.jdland.com/dc/stadium-tour-070326.cfm]here.[/url] edit : [url=http://www.jdland.com/dc/stadium.cfm]Renderings too![/url]

metirish Mar 27 2007 09:28 AM

Nice looking park,if the Marlins ever start work on a new stadium then every team in the NL East will have new stadiums.

Frayed Knot Mar 27 2007 09:33 AM

Not just the East. Except for Florida, Chicago & LA, every team in the NL has a stadium less than 10 years old or has their new one currently under construction. That DC park looks to be a lot further along than CItiField. When did they start?

metirish Mar 27 2007 09:35 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Not just the East. Except for Florida, Chicago & LA, every team in the NL has a stadium less than 10 years old or has their new one currently under construction. That DC park looks to be a lot further along than CItiField. When did they start? I was thnking the same thing about Citifield....we need an update and new pics(Steve). I didn't realize that there were so many new parks in the NL.

Methead Mar 27 2007 09:49 AM

"When did they start?" Groundbreaking ceremony was May 2006, looks like excavation began sometime that summer.

Edgy DC Mar 27 2007 09:50 AM

Well, in addition to the troublesome and counterintuitive glass façade of the DC park, there are two glass towers going up beyond left field. Wow. I hope they carefully considered whether they're exposing the batters to reflective glare during day games.