Afternoon Dave, Ya said;"Rizzo hasn't actually said that. He's been carefully wording his answer to questions about trading Lannan by saying he is not looking to trade any pitchers, while leaving the door open by throwing in the comment (without naming any specific player), that he is always willing to consider any offers that will help the organization (which of course applies at all times to virtually anyone)."
Ok, but I guess I formed my interpretation of Rizzo's statements on account Peter Gammons has the Cardinals looking at Lannan as a short term replacement since Chris Carpenter went down with neck problems. It turned out to be a bulging disc instead of the nerve problems which caused him to miss significant time in the past. They are also said to be looking at Roy Oswalt (bad back questionable here) and or Jeff Nieman of the Rays. (a good possibility)?
GO NATS !!!
Hya eddie, Ya said;" I would love to trade Bill Ladson for Peter Gammonds but I don't think ESPN will let him go."
ROTFLMAO !! Your sense of humor is finally coming out after all these years? Now, that's funny my friend. ;~)
Guys, if you're the New York Yankees, with a $200 million payroll, then maybe, just maybe, you pay a guy $5 million to pitch at AAA "as an insurance policy". A really angry insurance policy at that.
The Nats are not the Yankees. Lannan has the 5th highest salary on the team, behind Werth, Zimmerman, Jackson and LaRoche. He will not be pitching at AAA. He'll either be starting for the Nats, or traded for whatever they can get in return.
"Lannan has the 5th highest salary on the team, ......He will not be pitching at AAA."
That just doesn't follow. His salary is sunk cost. To make a decision how to deploy him based on his salary would be plain irrational.
Here's how if follows:
Spending $5 million on a minor league pitcher makes ownership look stupid, since that's 50 times what you should pay a veteran AAA insurance policy.
Going to 2nd-year arbitration with a pitcher and winning, paying the $5 million you proposed, but then determining that he shouldn't be in the majors makes the front office look stupid, since they should have non-tendered him if they didn't think he belonged.
If you're John Lannan, it's a massive slap in the face to be relegated to the minors without it being based on performance or recovery from injury. He'll never feel the same about the club that drafted him and promoted him, rode him like a cheap donkey during the lean years of 2007-2009, then stuck a knife in his back the minute they could.
If you're a pitcher, you will be very unhappy with the treatment of the most experienced and longest tenured starter on the team.
If you're the position player, you will be very unhappy at the callous way the front office handled the situation.
If you're a player coming up for free agency in the next few years, you'll be less likely to go with the Nats since they have a reputation for treating players poorly.
If he pitches for two months and has a 1-7 record with a 5.50+ ERA, then optioning him is acceptable. Everyone understands that poor performance is a legitimate reason to send a semi-veteran down if they have options.
If he hurts himself in spring training, then of course putting him on the DL for a while to get him healthy is acceptable. Teams stash players on the DL all the time coming out of spring training, but ti's a temporary solution, and it would kill any trade opportunity at all.
Ok, so we've established (a) it is unlikely he'll be sent down to start the season, if he's healthy; and (b) he's not likely to get us much in trade.
So, assuming that one of Wang or Detweiller proves by the end of spring training to be clearly better qualified to be #5 to start the season, what do you do with Lannan then?
I read somewhere recently that Wang is not an option for the pen because he takes too long to warm up..'
This Wang is really into foreplay apparently
No, comparative advantage means that, even though you're basically inferior to another choice in every way, there are certain ways that you're less inferior and that's what you gun for. From the team's perspective, Lannan is useless as a reliever but more than adequate as a starter. Thus, he's a starter or they eat his contract (bad for the Lerners and Rizzo), trade him for peanuts (bad for Rizzo), put him at AAA (bad for everyone) or they make him a starter and deal with the Wang situation. Wang, who is making less, has no real long-term ties to the team, has been injured for 2.5 out of the last 3 years, and almost certainly won't be able to go 200 innings this year.
I'm not down on Wang, but I would take Lannan over him as a starter if push came to shove on April 1 and they had to make a move.
The problem then is you have an unbalanced bullpen, with two lefty long relievers, a lefty situational guy, and no righty long reliever. I think of the three - Detwiler, Lannan and Gorzellany - Tom is probably more suitable for the bullpen, since he was ok there last year and has quite a bit of bullpen experience in general.
Lannan has never pitched out of the bullpen, and Detwiler probably isn't too comfortable there. I think it's ok to have one of them back there, but not both.
The Mets don't have any money to spend, due to the Wilpons losing tens of (hundreds of?) millions to Bernie Madoff. So, for the next few years, they're acting like mid-market owners even though with their own RSN and being in NYC they should be one of the biggest ones.
If Selig were a real commissioner, he'd force the Wilpons to sell the Mets.
"The Mets don't have any money to spend, "
I think perhaps he meant that we would include money along with Lannan?
First, this may all be a mute point depending on the injury and performance situation at the end of ST. Rizzo could come out smelling like a rose if a couple of pitchers end up on the DL. Stras, JZ, Wang all of histories of arm and shoulder problems and non of them, including Lannan, have lit it up thus far in ST (although it's early).
Most of your arguments are weak and a bit silly. Players all know this is a business. As soon as the Nats acquired Jackson, John knew his status for the year. Isn't just going to arbitration a bit of a slap in the face ? Everybody in baseball, and John, knows that it is very unlikely that he will be tendered a contract next year. I've already argued that point. In fact, John should consider himself lucky. On a better team, he may still be pitching in the minors and never had gotten the opportunity to show his stuff in the majors. That's the beauty of being a young pitcher on a bad team. Nobody is blocking you.
John knows the injury history of the guys in front of him. He also knows that Wang and Jackson are not in DC for the long term. It is very possible that the Nats maybe hovering around .500 at trade deadline time, making Wang and Jackson prime trading chips if they pitch close to expectations.
John Lannan's future will mirror the career of Joe Saunders. He will have to prove himself every year and probably command $5mill/yr thru his career. Not bad for an 11th round draft choice. If I'm John Lannan, I am on my knees thanking God for the Nats and saying "Bas-a-bol has been berry, berry good to me."
As far as the FO looking stupid for having a $5mil insurance policy pitiching in AAA. Well, the Werth acquasition has already accomplished that goal. Investing $3 mill and 2yrs for Wang to rehab ?? Paying Maya $2 mill/yr ?? Do I need to say more.