User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.7645 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
On the one hand I would usually chastize Jim Bowden for being too stupid to give a talented player like Watson a chance to play, instead relying on washed up scrubs like Tucker, Baerga or Cordero.
On the other hand, I think Ryan Church has a lot to offer the Nats.
I guess the tie-breaker is that Bowden stated that he relied on Spring-Training stats in making his decision...so I guess the scales tip once again to "Bowden is a friggin moron"
God, could we work out a Diaz for Church deal?
God, could we work out a Diaz for Church deal?
That depends: how did Diaz hit in spring training?
Cardinals need to ship Aaron Miles to Washington for him. I'm sure Bowden would do it, heck, maybe one of Albert's bats would accomplish it.
He's a hard bargainer. Nothing less than So Taguchi would get the job done.
I have a hat signed by Jim Bowden. Maybe if I burned it on top of a wax effigy, the Nats could make better decisions.
But then again maybe not.
I'm trying to figure out how this fits into Bud's plans for the Nationals, but I can't for the life of me. Any ideas?
Is it a dunce hat?
Maybe they caught him looking up Mrs. Bowden's skirt and are just teaching him a lesson.
Just this morning, the WaPo had a blind item praising Church, and talking about how many people in the front office think he's ready for the job fulltime.
I don't know if that's PT Bowden's typical bluster, or if Frank had a hand in this decision. Since it's stupid, it's easy to assume Bowden, but Frank has been highly complimentary of Watson, calling him the Anti-Endy all spring, and nothing how hard he's worked. Perhaps it was Frank's call.
August 11, 2005---Jim Bowden writes:
And what a sparkplug [Watson] was in his first game Tuesday, a critical game we won largely because of Brandon. He not only doubled and homered, but he almost beat out a routine grounder to second at the end of the game. That speed and energy adds a spark. It appeared the dugout had more energy than in the last 10 games. And you could see the excitement when he homered. Maybe what our club has needed is a true leadoff hitter. . . .
If Brandon Watson turns our offense around, then he has to play every day, which means someone has to sit and someone will be unhappy. But it's not about the name on the back of the jersey; it's only about the name on the front.
Between August 11 and August 14, 2005---Frank Robinson complains about having to mix Watson into the lineup.
August 14, 2005---Brandon Watson demoted.
Maybe it was Bowden; maybe it was Frank. Whatever the case, I'm thinking Bowden convinced Frank, rather than the other way around . . .
Was that when NJ was out and Wilkerson was subbing in at first?
Coming into spring, there was a hole at center and at leadoff (which I think was probably the deciding factor). Watson was given the shot, and Frank has made note a few times that he's done everything that Endy Chavez didn't do last year when he was given a shot to win the job coming out of Florida.
Regardless of whether it was Frank's choice or not, a good GM doesn't even give Frank the rope he'd use to hang himself with. ;)
daaaamniiitttt
But then, this is the Nats we're dealing with, so I half expect a 3-year $15 million contract any day.
I feel terrible for Church. I work with a guy who is neighbors with him, and says he is an awesome guy - genuinely nice and not at all arrogant. I'm sure he'll be back up soon when all of Bowden's ridiculous plans go horribly awry, but still, it sucks.
[...]
Oh yeah. That's not so hot since the hurricane Jim Bowden'd the whole city.
Spring training stats are about as valid as an Internet poll.
Of course, I have Allard Baird to deal with.
LOL. Still.
As an Expo fan who gets to 20 or so Nats games a year, I'm really trying to like this team. But Bowden is just killing me.
I'm on record as saying that this team will be better than most think, I really think they could have a better team this year than last year. But I was assuming of course, that Church would be playing every day. And that they'd make some correct decisions regarding the rotation (like including Jon Rauch in it). I'm pretty close to taking it all back.
Diamond Mind projections:
Church .276/.344/.455 AV/FR/AV Def. VG arm (LF/CF/RF)
Byrd .271/.326/.389 AV/FR/AV Def. AV arm
Watson .268/.297/.296 AV/FR/-- Def. AV arm
A Church/Byrd platoon would make some sense.
But Watson? Doesn't Bowden realize that you want the one with the higher numbers?
I guess this isn't that big of a deal. When Watson posts his .600 OPS+ in April, and Church hits something like .335/.410/.550 in AAA, they'll make the switch soon enough . . .
In fact, I said the following "Watson is garbage. He's a low-wattage mediocrity. Now Church, he could be something special."
I still believe this.
I also believe that at worst, at worst, Church was the fifth-best player on the Nats: behind just Johnson, Zimmerman, Soriano, Guillen and on some days Schneider.
Bowden makes it damn near impossible not to have buyer's remorse over my season ticket package.
I'll repeat -- it's sweet to be a Braves fan.
This is completely inappropriate, but it made me laugh this morning. What does that say about me?
DB
I also believe that at worst, at worst, Church was the fifth-best player on the Nats: behind just Johnson, Zimmerman, Soriano, Guillen and on some days Schneider.
I would take him over outfielder Soriano and Brian Schneider (though the latter one is close). Heck, he's probably a little better than Zimmerman at this point in time.
Wow...hitting .311 in 60 spring training ABs is quite an accomplishment. Bravo.
Or maybe that's me.
That you are a fan of a team with Jim Bowden as a GM, and that if you did not laugh, you would be weeping and nashing your teeth.
Typing and weeping and nashing your teeth at the same time is harder than it looks.
Add cronyism to Bowden's list of faults.
Let's fast forward to June 1. Watson is hitting .270 with 11 steals (caught 7 times) while Church is tearing up AAA. I wouldn't be shocked if Bowdes just sticks with Watson, especially if the Nats are hanging around in 3rd place thanks to Zimmmerman/Johnson/Schneider/Livan/Guillen/Soriano. Now that he's one of Bowden's projects, he might need to exhibit a Guzmanesque level of failure for Church to get another shot.
Then again, Soriano's only around for this year, I think. Maybe there's more to this than I thought. /me scratches head
I will choose to believe that money is only going to the corner infielders and John Patterson.
That place is going to be a morgue come August. A hot, humid morgue.
If Watson doesn't produce he will be sent down, neither one of these guys is patient. If Watson truely showed Bowden and Frank something, then maybe their is real improvement in his fundemental skill level.
It doesn't hurt to find out. They know what they have in Church, seeing what they have in Watson isn't bad, if they believe he has shown them something that he hasn't shown in the past.
Trading a solid potential building block (Wilkerson) for a player he didn't need (Soriano) to solve a problem he didn't have (outfield depth).
Then, he compounds the problem by demoting a potential building block (Church) in favor of a probable offensive zero (Watson).
Was it overreacting when Red Sox Nation spent most of 2005 bleating for Roberto Petagine to spell Kevin Millar?
RSN was wrong, Tito only stuck with Millar a little longer than he should have. Then when he tried to use Roberto in the field he played like a butcher at 1b.
Even if Watson DOES produce, and with a slap-hitter, there's always a chance that he'll luck into a good, but empty Batting Average, the team is still going to be hurt with respect to where they would've been with Church in the lineup.
And that's just offensively. Just yesterday there were anonymous quotes in the paper ripping Watson's centerfield defense. Soriano's bombing in left, too. They're going to have to re-sod the left-center alley by May.
and still didn't give youks a shot.
It looks to me like the Nationals are going for broke (the Soriano and Guillen deals for instance) so I'm doubtful that this was really part of their calculation.
I do?
So you're saying a 26 year old who plays plus outfield defense and hit .287/.353/.466 aren't a building block?
In 2004, Baseball America labeled him both the organization's best defensive outfielder and the player with the best plate discipline.
In his last AAA tour of duty, Church hit .343/.428/.620 in Edmonton. Two years ago. He's got nothing left to prove there.
When you're a team that's not going to win for a couple years, you're better of trying to build for the future - Church can be a leader on the next good Nationals team. Brandon Watson can't, period.
I'm not sure that it's completely inappropriate. Is it inappropriate to make jokes about current events now? It's not demeaning to anyone.
Sean - please provide your resume to the group. I'd like to see what qualified you to make such absolute claims that a very experienced management team disagrees with.
I have no problem with the statement that Church is better than Watson, he very well may be. I have issue with your absolute sureness of it. Players abilities change, they aren't constant - and while 60 AB's of spring training stats can't show if a players ability has changed, profesional baseball men can.
They aren't choosing to part company with church, if you think he is a buidling block (I don't) they still have him, and he will still get his PT this year, and will get to be part of the next good nationals team.
Finding out if Brandon Watson is a real player is more important to the Nationals 1-2 months of Ryan Churchs playing time, at the MLB level.
I'm confident Watson will outplay his DMB projection that Joe D posted earlier.
Sure it does. If Watson stinks, they'll hurt the team on the field by giving him PAs. And they risk pissing off Church and future FAs. No matter what other players might think of Soriano, I can't imagine that they see the Nationals in a positive light after that debacle, and this only compounds the problem.
It seems like you concede that Church is most likely the better player. The implicit argument, then, is that the Nationals are bad enough that they can take chances for teh future at the expense of the present. I'm skeptical of that argument to begin with, because it suggests that non-playoff teams have no incentive to win, and I doubt that highly. It seems to suggest that the Royals could send down David DeJesus or Tampa Bay could drop Jorge Cantu, and it wouldn't matter. I think it would matter, a lot, to their fans who pay to go to the games and want to see the team win.
Second, I don't see where the Nationals benefit by having Watson on the roster. He managed a 819 OPS in the PCL last year - if he's really taken a step forward that they have noticed, that progress should also appear in his hitting better in New Orleans.
Third, it seems like terrible management to fail to reward success. Ryan Church had a pretty excellent year last year, and has been very good through the minors. Demoting him after a good season sends exactly the wrong message to the players - that their success might go unnoticed due to the whim of management.
I agree that this move isn't the biggest deal ever, but I do think that a) it's a bad move and b) it's symptomatic of a management regime that has not only built an unimpressive track record of individual actions, but has shown no ability to articulate and stick to a plan.
My resume? What are you a headhunter now?
My qualifications are exactly the same as everyone else here - I watch the games, I read the box scores and have seen both of these cats play at the big league level and I'm telling you Watson is not a big league player.
He's a fast guy who occassionally makes contact, takes routes to fly balls that would make Magellan or Bernie Williams shake their heads in disgust, and is indicative of the trend in Washington of this short-timer GM getting distracted by the first toolsy, speedy, low-wattage empty jersey that he sees (READ: Soriano, Alfonso; Davis, J.J.; Hammonds, Jeffery; Kelly, Kenny; etc. etc. etc.).
This move isn't the disease, its a symptom.
I guess one could couch it in terms of wanting to get Church regular at bats, and not throw off his development curve. In which case, the question becomes, would Church's development be better served by getting regular at-bats at AAA, or by seeing sporadic at-bats in the majors?
Good lord. This is ridiculous. So Bowden and the rest of the Nationals' management team must be right because they work for a ML team and Sean doesn't?
Well, it is possible that this move was made for non-baseball reasons, and Bowden is choosing not to air that dirty laundry in public. I'm not saying there is any reason to believe this, but it is important to note that we don't always have all of the information.
That being said, I think that the content of Sean's resume is irrelevant. The only reason that he may not be qualified to pass judgement on the decision is that he may not have all of the information, not because his resume is lacking in some way. Additionally, this is Sean's and everyone's right, to make statements about how you feel your team is being run. Bowden gets paid plenty of money to be able to take the criticism.
I thought that was pretty much the whole point of this website...
That's certainly true, but in this case I don't see any reason not to take Bowden at his word -- i.e., that Watsom simply beat him out by having a superior ST. It's pretty rare for a team to make a decision like this for non-performance reasons, and AFAIK there's no evidence that Church is a troublemaker.
Personally, I just can't stand the attitude that you should defer to someone in a position of authority simply because they're in a position of authority.
Which is pretty much the point of the second part of my post. My opinion on this is that you do defer and trust people who have earned that benefit of the doubt. In baseball, that would be earned by winning, and making good personnel decisions. Bowden has a poor track record in both departments.
Actually no - I'm not saying they MUST be right. They might be right they might be wrong. Time will tell. Sean, is the one who is talking in absolutes:
That is an obvious MAJOR difference in opinion between Sean, and the Nats management team. Now, I have major differences of opinion with many teams, about players, however, I'm not remotly qualified to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right, and the team is wrong. Sean here on the other hand, thinks he is, otherwise he wouldn't use such powerful words like "period".
For the record, I think Church is better than Watson. Though I think it is possiable that Church is actualy a better player today than he previous history indicates - and if that is the case it is possiable that Watson is a reasonable alternative to Church - especially since I think Church will still end up 300-450 AB's this year, even starting the year in the minors.
Who said you should defer, to them. I'm saying that Sean, doesn't have the skills to say weather they are correct or not, in this particular case. I don't have those skills either.
Any idiot (and I don't think sean is an idiot) can look at their histories and say Church > Watson, even the Nats can do that. Their must be more to the reasons. Sean is saying their can't be ie: "period". From the quotes from Bowden it seems like they believe Watson has turned a corner and improved his level of ability. We shall see if he has, or they have misevaluated, which is certainly with in the realm of possiability.
"We're from the Nationals. We're here to help."
By this logic, none of us have the skills to say whether or not they are correct, and therefore we should always defer to their judgement. Maybe that's not what you meant, but I don't see how you can draw a distinction between Sean's criticism and any other criticism of someone in a position of authority. There's always something that a GM (President/CEO/General/etc.) knows that we don't. It doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't say they're wrong. (BTW, is the fact that Sean used the word "period" really that big a deal? Would your opinion change if he'd added an "in my opinion"?)
To me, this is the heart of the issue. You seem to assume that every decision made by a GM is based on a logical decision making process. I don't. I think people in all walks of life make dumb, irrational decisions all the time. Baseball is no different.
Too bad my A's are stocked with depth. I would love for Choi and Church to be on the team. Hell, I'd take Church anyway.
I think that he is so sure that it is wrong, is what I think is a big deal.
There are some decisions that we can evaluate, real time, for example carrying a standard no hit 3rd catcher, with 2 healthy catchers on the roster compared to a 5th outfielder than can hit a bit.
Or trading depth from one position to fill a hole.
Or when signing a free agent.
These are easy to evaluate real time, and need to be evaluated after the fact as well.
Others like this one, we can't really comment on with any level of confidence, because we have limited information about the players abilities, about the horizon or the move, and what future considerations the move may necessitate.
In other words, instead of assuming that the people making the moves are dumb as bricks, assume they have reasonable reasons for the move, and time will tell if they were right or not. I thought the Sox were dumb as bricks to sign Damon for 8m a year a few years ago. I was very wrong in retrospect, I assumed they misevaluated how good he was. When in reality I misevaluated how good he was.
Also, to switch gears I actually think its good that the Nats told Watson that he had a chance to win a starting job, then when he outplayed the guy he was competing for he got the job. It's good from an organizational management perspective. With that said, it certainly reasonably questionable to say that he shouldn't have been told he would have a chance to compete for a starting job.
Taking into account Bowden's inclination toward name players: Payton for Church?
I am, of course, not saying that Church is Albert Pujols. Rather, that we can make a very informed judgment regarding the likely talent level of various players. Of course, there's no guarantees; it's merely who is more likely to be the better player.
Also, why in the world would you assume that GM's are incapable of making bad decisions? I don't just mean a decision that doesn't work out in the long run; I mean a decision that is very likely not to work out in the long run.
The signing of Johnny Damon, by the way, was not one of those decisions.
In a heartbeat. In fact, I'd give Bowden Payton AND his choice of Saarloos, Kennedy or Halsey as a bonus. Come on Billy, pick up the damn phone!
Or trading depth from one position to fill a hole.
Or when signing a free agent.
These are easy to evaluate real time, and need to be evaluated after the fact as well.
This is a distinction without a difference. I could just as easily say that you can't evaluate the signing of a FA in real time b/c you don't know how much extra revenue the player will generate or what leadership qualities he does or doesn't have. Or maybe there's something about that 3rd catcher that we don't know about but the GM does.
If you think that seeing if Watson can play is more important taht 1-2 months of Church... which is to say, more important than most likely getting better production, why would you want an old guy like Tucker on the team anyways?
Finding out if Brandon Watson is a real player is more important to the Nationals 1-2 months of Ryan Churchs playing time, at the MLB level.
The main problem with this statement is that 1-2 months of Watson playing isn't going to show definitively one way or the other if he can contribue in the majors.
BTW, Watson's minor league SLG% is .350. He'll have to hit .350 to be a valuable major leaguer. I don't think his OPS will be better than 675, which is too low to be valuable.
Their must be more to the reasons.
How many bad trades would a team have to make, in your opinion, before you can say they don't have the skills to say someone with a worse projection (based on stats) is going to perform better?
RP - your wrong - there is a distinction.
We have reason to believe that Watson is a better hitter than his history indicates. What is that reason? Nats managament are telling us that not just with actions, but with words and vice versa. We now they think he is better than his history.
If a team thinks a players has plus leadership, then they will tell us - they usually do. Does that mean we are able to a $ amount on what we think that leadership is worth? No - but we know what the player signed for, and if we know what similar players are signing for, assuming their is a premium we can say - well X signed this 8m dollar type of player for 12m and say that they love his leadership, well you can safely and reasonably conclude they likely overpaid for his precieved leadership. If they signed the same 8m guy for 10m well then it gets a little dicey and its tough to say.
We also know why teams carry a 3rd catcher - its not for their bats - unless a team tells you that they are carrying Mike Delafice for his bat, its a safe assumption they are carry him because they want that third catcher. We know thats a bad use of resources (again assuming the other catchers are healthy).
This is true, we have a reason to believe this. It is a really bad reason, but its a reason. Its very possible that either the Nats pay little attention to minor league numbers, or are incapable of analyzing them effectively.
but we know what the player signed for, and if we know what similar players are signing for, assuming their is a premium we can say - well X signed this 8m dollar type of player for 12m and say that they love his leadership, well you can safely and reasonably conclude they likely overpaid for his precieved leadership
No you can't. First of all, teams often talk up the "leadership" of their free agent signings - it doesn't mean they really believe it. Second, we might think a team overplays for a player based on the stats, but the team might think differently - it has nothing to do with leadership.
We also know why teams carry a 3rd catcher - its not for their bats - unless a team tells you that they are carrying Mike Delafice for his bat, its a safe assumption they are carry him because they want that third catcher. We know thats a bad use of resources
No we don't. We know its likely to end up being a bad use of resources, but it might work out as well - just like how Watson might end up being a better player than Church.
My head is on the verge of exploding.
There was a reliever who had a similar rep and problem a few years ago. Jeff Brantley?
Jeff Brantley a Jesus freak? That surprises me.
This may or may not be true, but for what its worth, Church went to college at Nevada, in Reno. It's pretty damn hard to be too religious in this town, with the gambling and drinking and smoking and strippers and prostitutes.
Let me just say that I think that Rauseo brings valuable contributions to the site. He is willing to challenge the conventional wisdom and often backs it up with evidence.
Also, I'd love to know why you think the site has deteriorated and how exactly Rauseo's influence caused that? I certainly am here less, but I think that's a combination of my preferences and the site changes.
Chad Curtis had issues like that, too, though I think Curtis was a jerk first and an evangelist second.
There was a report last year about Church saying something about how the Jews would probably go to hell. But not everyone who believes that is a problem in the clubhouse.
Padgett's comment was, wow, I don't really know what to say about that. I disagree with MHS on this thread, but I disagree much more strongly with his statement about Rauseo's influence. Jeez. That was really mean.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main