User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.3880 seconds
54 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.
1. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: February 02, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4052137)Also: They signed Jackson to a one-year deal? I don't really get why they'd want that.
Based on recent reports, this seems to be Jackson's preference, as he wants to test the market next year for a longer deal.
I'm generally skeptical of "success-cycle" reasoning, both because the cycle doesn't actually exist as an empirical matter, and because most fans would much rather root for a 75-win team than a 65-win team. But the Nats seemed perfectly lined up to do well this year and then throw themselves into the playoff races next year. Spending $10M on a relatively small rotation upgrade ($5M if they can move Lannan), with effects only for 2012 and no further, doesn't seem like a particularly good use of funds. Why not save that money and have it to invest next fall, or if an opportunity to improve the 2013-2014 team comes up?
I guess the idea is that they can get help for the future from a Lannan deal, and this keeps the club in the .500+ range with some shot at a playoff run if everything comes together. Still don't really get it.
Maybe there's a 2013 option that hasn't been reported yet?
I'm not seeing a downside to Jackson on 1/$10 or thereabouts. He significantly improves their chances of finishing over 500 for the first time (not a small deal) with at least an outside shot at a wild card (especially if there are 2). If he pitches well and you decide you want to keep him, then you have an exclusive window to discuss an extension or try to sign him in the offseason. If the season doesn't go great, you can trade him. We're near the point in the offseason where the money is either going to be spent on the 25-man roster or go in the onwers' pockets.
Why not save that money and have it to invest next fall
What do you have in mind here?
Perhaps they want to appeal to African-American fans, plus this gives the team a better chance of winning now. While they won't win the division, they could possibly compete for the second Wild Card (which I think will be implemented this year) and finally give the fans something to get excited about and build for the future when Harper-Mania begins. Plus if Jackson pitches well maybe they lock him up with an extension - I can't imagine EJax will be thrilled going onto a market with Greinke, Hamels, Cain, etc.
Washington has plenty of money.
Boston should have been all over this, even going to 1/15. A one year deal doesn't affect the luxury tax cap/revenue sharing stuff to come.
I think owners/GMs generally have the idea that if you sign a player this year you have a better shot of signing him for future years. There probably isn't any truth to it but I can see the Nats thinking "hey, he has a good year, enjoys it here, maybe we can sign him long term next winter."
Isn't the free-agent compensation cut-off for next offseason something like $12.5 million? Provided Jackson puts up his usual 3 WAR(ish) season, offering him arbitration at the above figure seems more than reasonable.
Perhaps they want to appeal to African-American fans, plus this gives the team a better chance of winning now.
Is there any reason to think signing Edwin Jackson -- not a star nor an extraordinary personality -- is going to draw a disproportionate amount of African Americans than otherwise? That strikes me as back-of-the-pants analysis and rather silly. Seems to me the simpler explanation is that 1/$10 for 200 innings and a league average ERA is good value for a fringe playoff contender.
Stars are what draw fans, and Jackson isn't one. He is, however, a solid back of the rotation guy who gives you innings and lightens the load on your bullpen (in other words, a younger version of Livan Hernandez). This makes a good rotation even stronger; another smart move by Rizzo.
But I, like Smitty, hate pants!
I'm not saying I believe it, but I can believe Washington management believes it. I don't think it was the primary factor, but it was probably a factor.
I'm not sure I agree with the Ollie Perez thing, but I'm pretty surprised Jackson and Boras didn't push for a multi-year deal since next year's crop of free agent starting pitchers is probably going to be better, and Jackson is good enough and consistent enough to warrant a multi-year deal now.
Boras was looking for a AJ Burnett contract for Jackson. I remember reading that he had several 3 years offers on the table, but they weren't enough. I don't think his bargaining position will improve much next year but maybe Boras will work his magic.
Really?
He's made enough that he's set for life anyway ($16.3M per BRef plus this deal).
So, if he thinks he can get 3/36 next year, and is offered 3/24 or 1/12, he's risking $12M (minus whatever few million he'd earn on rehab deals) for an $8M upside.
Seems close to a 50:50 risk. I don't think there's a 50% chance of a major injury.
I think he's thinking bigger than that. I think in his mind if he has a good year he can get the 4-5 year deal he/Boras was supposedly asking for this year. I'm with you though, I think this makes more sense than a 1 year deal. The only way a 1 year deal hurts him is if he does get hurt and I'm sure he is not expecting that and the fact that he signed such a deal is a sign that he probably feels healthy at the moment.
Count me as confused. I thought he was German.
Don't forget Wang, too, who shocked me by actually being relatively effective despite missing two years. The National League East is going to be very tough this season. It's appearing pretty dire at this point for the Mets, but I really think the Braves need to be looking over their shoulders, as well. They have solid pitching depth, but Heyward needs to rediscover his swing and stay healthy for that offense to be reliable. The Marlins and Nats are two very interesting teams. Davey Johnson and Ozzie Guillen managing. Strasburg and Josh Johnson trying to stay healthy, Gio Gonzalez and Carlos Zambrano on new teams (not that Gonzalez has a poor attitude, but his pitching style is volatile) Harper and Stanton. Fascinating players.
Disproportionate? No. Some amount > 0? Sure.
Mike Morse is the Nats' LF, with Adam LaRoche returning from injury to play 1B. So Young isn't a fit. (However fondly Nats fans remember his brother.)
He was born in W Germany. Just reinforces the potential absurdity of the term 'African American'.
There was a lawsuit a few years ago by a student at UMDNJ in NJ that was harasses and suspended for describing himself as "white African American". He was an immigrant from Mozambique, so was literally African and American.
Well, seeing that "some amount > 0" could be, well, one additional person, it's tough to argue with that. Still, I'd bet the amount of people coming out to see Jackson specifically because he's black is negligible.
He was born in W Germany. Just reinforces the potential absurdity of the term 'African American'.
Yeah -- I regret initially going with that term.
Luke Scott doesn't believe it til he sees some documentation.
Was she born in Africa? If so, then yes.
And here Charlize Theron can joke about it and everyone laughs.
Makes sense to me. See if you're in contention at the All Star Break, if not, shop Jackson around to the teams that are and see if you can get your next CF or SS out of it.
The Nats looked like about an 82 win team to me before this signing, which means they'd probably project in the 72-92 win range. If Jackson makes them more like an 85 win team, now they're looking at 75-95. It's not too tough to see a few things breaking right and them getting into the postseason.
The worst case scenario here is Jackson either stinks or gets hurt. If that happens, they may not be able to trade him but they aren't tied into him long-term.
I don't see any downside here, especially since they seem to have the money to afford him.
The Nats are a few games better, have a tradable player who might be encouraged to stay if he enjoys his time with Washington, and this won't hurt them next offseason when it's time to signing more free agents. Two seasons ago the Nats were something of a joke. I don't think anyone thinks of them that way, now, and the Jackson signing is a small but useful part of that.
If the Mets get rid of the Wilpons the next owner and GM are going to have to work hard to shed the joke label. It won't be easy, and it will probably add to both the cost and time it's going to take to get the Mets back into contention.
You can have worse happen than getting punched in the nuts (for instance, getting punched in the nuts twice) but that doesn't mean the original outcome is desirable. Young is a lousy offensive player for his position while also being garbage defensively
Wouldn't she be a white American-African though?
Strasburg, Zimmermann, and Gonzalez are locked up for the foreseeable future, but Jackson and Wang are both on one year deals. I expect Mike Rizzo to treat this year as an audition, and offer a multi-year deal to whichever one he likes better, or dip back into next year's impressive FA pitching class. Not a strategy guaranteed to work, but it's hard to see any real downside for the team.
If this does mean the end of Lannan's time in DC that will be a shame. He became a fan favorite for consistently pitching above his stuff and his peripherals (and for breaking Chase Utley's hand).
We say Asian-American don't we?
Not for Bruce Chen!
You can if you assume American applies to the entire Western Hempisphere.
Wang is looking like insurance against not landing any better pitchers in the offseason, but didn't it seem like 4 million was a bargain contract for him a few months ago? I don't think there'll be any limit on his innings beyond how effective he actually is, there's no reason to protect him, and he's going to want to pitch as much as possible to get a better contract next year.
Is "coolie" no longer acceptable? We can at least still use "chinaman", right?
Do we? Serious question. I don't think I have ever used or heard the term directly (verbally spoken directly to me). I am sure I have read it or heard it used on the news or something but not nearly to the extent that African-American is used. Think of all the Hmong in the US. They are typically referenced as 'Hmong', not Asian-American or Hmong-American.
I thought that was the preferred term if referring to what used to be called "orientals" in general. Japanese-American, Chiness-American if you're specifying nationality. Just like Italian-American.
And again, I question whether the 'American' ever makes it on to those terms. I hear them as Japanese, Chinese, Italian. I have never once heard a someone describe themselves as Italian-American, it's always just 'Italian' (and I went to school outside of Philly, with a lot of stereotypical Jersey Shore guidos).
Oh, I do not doubt a 2nd generation Korean-American considers him or herself an American, but when describing their ethnicity I bet they say they are Korean, or if a broader term was needed, they would resort to Asian.
Does it have to have a hyphen in it?
Well, we're referring to the PC terms used officially. Most people just say black, not African-American.
Well, we're referring to the PC terms used officially. Most people just say black, not African-American.
And my question is why African-American still has heavy common usage whereas Asian-American does not.
If someone asks what I am, I say "Korean-American." If someone asks what my ethnicity is, I say "Korean." Korean-American is not an ethnicity, is it? I certainly wouldn't say I'm Korean. I've been to Korea once in my life.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main