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

I'd say it's a safer conclusion that management is saying things that fans want to hear. It's either that or saying, "We overpaid for Player X because we kinda painted ourselves into a corner personnel-wise." Or, "He should've been worth X dollars but we grossly misevaluated the market."

Maybe somebody mixed up the memo...

It was supposed to be "Everybody knows that Ryan Church should be a starter."

Instead, they thought it said "Ryan: 'Everybody should be at Church.' No starter."

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.

This isn't quite right, but it's a common belief, and it's going to dog Church til the end of his career.

There was a report about Baseball Chapel in the Washington Post where Church was quoted. He, from context, doesn't seem like he's a regular bible thumper, but he had a few questions of the pastor (or whatever they call him.) One of them involved his then-gf. He's hearing this fire and brimstone speech from the pastor, and wondered what would happen to his gf, who was Jewish.

He was quoted in the Post relaying what the Baseball Chapel person told him, that because she hasn't accepted Jesus, she was going to hell.

Church didn't say that himself, although I suppose it's reasonable to assume it. And there's never been any other indication that he's proselytized in the clubhouse.

I'm not making excuses for him, or condoning what he's said, but it's a pretty important distinction between him relaying what a person in a supposed position of authority told him, and what he actually believes.

One of them involved his then-gf. He's hearing this fire and brimstone speech from the pastor, and wondered what would happen to his gf, who was Jewish.

He was quoted in the Post relaying what the Baseball Chapel person told him, that because she hasn't accepted Jesus, she was going to hell.

Church didn't say that himself, although I suppose it's reasonable to assume it. And there's never been any other indication that he's proselytized in the clubhouse.

I'm not making excuses for him, or condoning what he's said, but it's a pretty important distinction between him relaying what a person in a supposed position of authority told him, and what he actually believes.

Well, I am making excuses for him. If all of these details are true, I'd find it hard to believe that he truly believes that all Jews go to hell, much less that he goes around the clubhouse spreading it, since he does have (had?) a Jewish girlfriend.

I'm not making excuses for him, or condoning what he's said, but it's a pretty important distinction between him relaying what a person in a supposed position of authority told him, and what he actually believes.

From Washington Post:

An article in Sunday's paper about Baseball Chapel quoted Church as saying that he had turned to Moeller for advice about his former girlfriend, who was Jewish. "I said, like, Jewish people, they don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean they're doomed? Jon nodded, like, that's what it meant. My ex-girlfriend! I was like, man, if they only knew. Other religions don't know any better. It's up to us to spread the word," Church said.

If "lack of religion in order to not annoy teammates" is the 6th tool, I'm a freakin 80 in that department. I have one MLB ready tool...sweet, uh please don't take the previous statement literally

If "lack of religion in order to not annoy teammates" is the 6th tool, I'm a freakin 80 in that department. I have one MLB ready tool...sweet, uh please don't take the previous statement literally

LOL

I'm a Nat season ticket holder ... Watson had an OBP of .400 in AAA last year (and a .355 BA) with 31 SBs. Only 33 Ks. He had a better year than Church. Church started off well and had an awful second half. He followed it up with a putrid spring.

He was really badmouthed in the press by FRob and teammates last year for not playing hurt. It was so constant and so seemingly unsolicited that it had the air of something more going on.

He was really badmouthed in the press by FRob and teammates last year for not playing hurt. It was so constant and so seemingly unsolicited that it had the air of something more going on.

Clearly, in the multi-year plan to demote him for no reason, it would have looked more plausible if he had been forced to play hurt and deflate his statistics the previous season.

Just like when Mom and Pop moved into the neighborhood and built up trust for 40 years, so they could steal Jerry's sneakers.

I think this thread is hilarious. Back when I made my first posts in the discussion, I almost cracked wise about Rauseo showing up and defending Bowden again. Lo and behold, Mister High Standards has arrived.

However, just because we've sparred in the past, that doesn't mean that I think Padgett's comment was at all deserved. Matt can be an ass, but so can the rest of us. I know I wouldn't appreciate it if someone said they would avoid some place just because I was there. Not cool.

Post 92 was completely uncalled for.

I'm a Nat season ticket holder ... Watson had an OBP of .400 in AAA last year (and a .355 BA) with 31 SBs. Only 33 Ks. He had a better year than Church. Church started off well and had an awful second half. He followed it up with a putrid spring.

Actually, Watson's year wasn't better. For one, he played part of the season in AA and was atrocious there. For another, Watson's MLE EQA from AAA was .280 - Church's EQA was .285. So Church was better, even if you don't consider the terrible numbers Watson had at AA. Also, Watson has been awful every other year in his career, and last year he had repeated AAA which I know some prospect analysts think makes it easier to succeed.

"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."

Obviously any idiot can't. The problem is Bowden doesn't realize what he has in Church. He thinks Church is just another Marlon Byrd. Hell he thinks Church is less than Byrd.

Brandon Watson is fast and he tries hard and he's been hitting well this spring. So stick him in the lineup. That's the whole of it. This isn't some grand idea where they are sending Church down because they know what they have in him and want to see Watson. They think Watson is the better player, which is ludicrous. I don't care what's on my resume, Sean is right.

And if they thought Watson was this good, why the hell didn't they trade Wilkerson and Sledge for pitcher instead of another outfielder. I mean if they thought Church was any good, and they had Watson on the way, why would you need Soriano?

This is a rudderless ship if I've ever seen one. There is absolutely no plan, all of the moves are made in a vacuum. It's just agonizing to watch.

BTW, this is the same management that wouldn't give Rick Short, who was hitting FOUR HUNDRED in AAA or Ryan Zimmerman a shot over Christian Guzman or Vinny Castilla last year, until it was over. So it's not like they love to give kids a shot.

So Christian Guzman gets to keep his job last year, but Ryan Church gets sent down for Willie Mays Haze? How can anyone defend this guy?

Seriously Matt - this is the same kind of stupid decision Bill James would rip a team like the mid-80s Indians for.

And I'm usually one to argue that moves that we think are good are usually 60/40 good, not 90/10 good. I realize there is a ton of uncertainty, many variables that no one (even experienced baseball people) can account for. Even trades that seem like a steal a first probably aren't, and could easily backfire.

This isn't one of those situations. This is as clear-cut a mistake as you'll ever see a major-league GM make.

BTW - If I'm not qualified to make that determination, due to not having worked for a team, ask MGL or Bill James what they think of the move :-)

Not that I "want" to take the same position as MHS... but

My first thought was what a godawful move, wow Bowden sure is an idiot, etc. etc.

Well
1: Bowden is (for an MLB GM) an idiot. 30 GMs, he's got to be in the bottom 10 (not dead last- (for instance Bowden's replacement in Cincy, I know he's nota GM anymore, was even worse.) he doesn't learn from experience and he makes the same mistakes that rookie rotisserrie owners make- and then he makes them again.
2: Bowden does not get any benfit of any doubt- the "experienced management line" may carry weight talking about other regimes- not his-

BUT:

Church isn't all that great. He hit AA at 23, repeated at 24- and frankly was not very impressive at 24- He "broke out" at 25- In Edmonton PCL- stop the presses a 25 year old hit .343 in the PCL after 600+ AA at bats.
Church was decent last year- at age 26 in teh majors- good not great-

Watson is 3 years younger- reached AAA at a younger age- reached the majors at a younger age. He has no power whatsoever- but has a contact rate high enough to suggest he can maintain a high batting average. Church was better in AAA at age 25 than Watson was at age 22. Watson started to close THAT gap at age 23.

Watson could easily end up being the better player.

Those who have followed this franchise for a wee bit longer than its Washington incarnation may remember FRobby's enthusiasm for the likes of Ron Calloway, who got playing time at the expense of Juan Rivera in early 2004. (Carl Everett was out of action, and Calloway got the nod ahead of Rivera, who like Church v Watson was the player with better potential.)

I see this as more of the same. FRobby is impressed with Brandon's attitude in meaningless spring training games, and wants to give him a chance. FRobby is harsh with players he doesn't like, much in the way of Leo Durocher, and Church is paying the price for last season's indiscretions and not being as good as Brandon this spring.

I've been hesitant to weigh in at first, being a relatively mild-mannered poster who really doesn't care about the National except when they beat the Phillies and Mets (warning: Braves fan present).

But there are a couple of things worth mentioning:

1. What else did FRob expect from Watson and Church? Guys who are not on the roster are going to bust hump to make the squad, hustling out grounders when they're out and the like. Church, on the other hand, like most guys assured--or his his case, seemingly assured--of a starting gig, are working out kinks in their stroke and the like. Effort should not supercede skill.

2. On that point: while Watson might be toolsy (gosh, Bowden LOVES those guys...Guzman had tools back in 1997...), Church has 1/2 season of major league production at an above league average level. Plus a good AAA season, no matter what age he did it. Are people punishing Travis Hafner now, just because it took him until 25 to make the bigs?

3. The smart move, if Bowden were really sure on Watson, would have been to release Tucker--which he ultimately did--and keep Church as well. But then again, Bowden has not really been accused of "smart" all that often. Aggressive? yes. Smart? hmmm...

4. As for the inane discussion of "what's on YOUR resume?" This matters not a lick. Eric Mangini of the Jets started as an office gopher, I believe. Shapiro of the Indians, if I'm not mistaken, took a similar route. I'm sure there are scores of examples of smart people with nothing on their resume, yet in possession of a solid understanding of statistics, economics and managerial skills to be a coach/GM/club VP. It just so happens that some of them are working for industry, government, or anywhere else NOT in baseball. There are likely at least five people on this site who are more than capable of successful general managing at the major league level. It just so happens that retreads like Jim Bowden get the gigs.

gw

The Nationals are going to win the World Series this year as part of the divine plan to make statheads look like idiots.

Watson could easily end up being the better player.

Possibly, but I really really doubt that he will be better this year. Aren't the Nats positioning themselves for a playoff run after last year's "magic"?

They should realize that every win counts, and shouldn't be spending their time giving auditions to guys who hustle.

The Nationals are going to win the World Series this year as part of the divine plan to make statheads look like idiots.

2002 - proto-Nationals, Marlins, Red Sox exchange owners
2003 - Florida Marlins (owned by Loria, who owned the proto-Nationals)
2004 - Boston Red Sox (owned by Henry, who owned the Marlins and sold them to Loria)
2005 - Chicago White Sox (owned by Reinsdorf, chief of the relocation committee for the proto-Nationals)
2006 - ?

Now I ask you, with that recent record, which team logically comes next?