The Washington Nationals have signed versatile veteran infielder/outfielder Mark DeRosa to a one year contract, the club announced today. This is a no-brainer: we’ve always been fans of DeRosa, who is a welcome addition to the Nationals’ bench. He can hit and field, is a great presence in the clubhouse, and is a steady veteran of the type that Davey Johnson likes. That said, DeRosa had an up-and-down year in 2011 — though mostly down. He suffered a nasty wrist injury, which limited his season to under 50 games.
The signing of DeRosa, which has been expected, fills one of the team’s identified needs: putting together a bench that surpasses the poorly performing bench of last year. DeRosa is a plus, a kind of Jerry Hairston, Jr. player but with more stuff at the plate coupled with the ability to play any number of positions. Additionally, DeRosa said that he wanted to play for the Nationals after it became clear that his time in San Francisco was up. DeRosa is just three years on from his best years as a player when, after a doubles-heavy tenure with the Rangers, he was signed as a free agent by the Chicago Cubs. In 2008, he hit .285 with 21 home runs.
DeRosa has to show that he’s healthy; in his case, passing a physical is more than just pro forma. DeRosa’s wrist injury last year (on a checked swing, no less), might have ended his career, and some Nats fans are concerned that his wrist is now “shot.” If that’s the case (which will become clear, we assume, in Spring Training), then he might not have the late-inning pop that has become his trademark.
But this is a plus, and a big one. DeRosa could fill a yawning need at first base. Adam LaRoche spent last season injured and Chris Marrero’s torn left hamstring will make him uncertain for Spring Training. Then too, though no one will mention it, Ryan Zimmerman has had problems staying healthy — and the Nationals simply cannot afford another power void season at third base. So, if all goes as unplanned planned, we could be seeing a lot of DeRosa in 2011.
It’s probably just a coincidence, but on the day that Tom Boswell pummeled the Lerners and Mike Rizzo for refusing to spend money (or take chances), the team pulled off a major trade with the Oakland A’s. Maybe Mikey was feeling the heat. Maybe not. Either way, the deal brings uber-talented lefty Gio Gonzalez to the Nationals to head up what is now one of baseball’s best rotations, but ships out four talented prospects, including Brad Peacock, whose as close to a “can’t miss” as the Nationals have. So: was it worth it?
Amanda Comack over at the Washington Times says that Gonzalez “fits precisely what Washington wants,” and gives the team a top-of-the-rotation innings eater. Comack points out that Gonzalez’s numbers translate well into the National League, though he walks a lot of hitters (91, to lead the AL last year). John Heyman over at Baseball Insider gives the Nats an attaboy, saying the team improved its rotation to the point where it may be a contender. Keith Law, meanwhile, says he’s not that impressed with Gonzalez (you have to wonder why, but it’s Keith Law), while Buster “Blind Dog” Olney (who actually sometimes finds a bone) says that Gonzalez reminds him of Twinkies starter Brad Radke — which is to say that Buster doesn’t know what to think.
We prefer to issue our judgments over a glass of scotch, which is where (last night) we received this opinion from one of the team’s season ticket holders. “The price is high,” this fan said, “maybe too high.” The fan then pointed out that “Rizzo would not have done this had he landed [Mark] Buehrle.” True. Which is not only to point out that scotch is a powerful truth serum (not always a good thing, mind you), but to suggest that if Rizzo & Company had bid higher for the former Pale Hose veteran, the team would not only have a front-of-the-rotation arm that is (arguably) better than Gonzalez, but they would have been able to hang on to both Peacock and Milone — whose arms will now be tested in the cavernous confines of the Oakland Coliseum.
Sometimes the most obvious conclusions are the ones you stick with — that Boswell’s criticism remains on target precisely because when Rizzo couldn’t pony up the bucks for Buehrle he had no choice but to part with four prospects for a front line pitcher. Gonzalez is a great addition and we applaud it, but spending the money on Buehrle and hanging on to Peacock, Milone, Norris and Cole would have been the wiser move. Yeah. True. But we’ll take it and hope that the Lerners are so irritated by what Boswell wrote that they’ll be determined to prove him wrong.
The Chicago Sun-Times (the Windy City’s equivalent of the Boston Herald) tells us that Theo Epstein’s grandfather co-wrote the screenplay for “Casablanca,” the heart-throbbing cinema event that defined America two generations ago. Alright, big deal — but it’s good to remember that when grandma toddled off to see it, Franklin Roosevelt was president, American soldiers were fighting the Japanese at a place called Buna . . . and the Cubs hadn’t won the World Series in 34 years.
That was a little less than seventy years ago: the Cubs still haven’t won the series, the Japanese are now our friends and this guy — who didn’t even play baseball in high school — thinks he’s going to rescue the Cubs. Ha! Think of that: the arrogance. The fact that Theo & Company recently had a pretty good run in Boston (in the junior circuit — and for a team named for the color of their hosiery, no less), doesn’t mean squat. These are the Cubs. The North Side Drama Queens. The Palestinians of the baseball world. They don’t win. Ever.
Which hasn’t kept Chicago from being excited. “Terrific news,” says Bleed Cubbie Blue. “This is about as good a news as we can get,” says The View From The Bleachers. “Epstein is worth the sticker price,” notes The Cub Reporter. Okay, but before Cubs fans anoint Epstein “A-Number-One,” the King of Chicago, they should remember that he can’t hit, pitch or field — and neither can the Cubs. And that’ll be true this next year, and the year after, and probably the year after that.
How do we know? Because it’s been seven years since the Nationals arrived in Washington, and this year they finished a game under .500 — which is about where they were when they arrived in town. Spontaneous demonstrations broke out in Washington at season’s end — because compared to where the Nats’ came from, one game under .500 looks and feels like success. The Cubs are worse, much worse. By mid-season of 2012, Theo will wonder what the hell he’s gotten himself into.
So while everyone in Chicago is calculating who goes, and when (and who arrives), Epstein’s first challenge has little to do with the team on the field. You don’t win without a strong front office and a patient fan base. Finding good young players and convincing Cubbiedom that this will take time (after 103 years, no less) will take some doing. And while he’s at it, he can deep six “the five B’s” — black cats, billy goats, Broglio, Brant Brown — and Bartman.
The “curse” (and how many are there?) is just an excuse. Truth is, the Cubs haven’t developed a good player since Mark Grace (Sandberg came via Philadelphia, and the Twins passed on Mark Prior to draft Joe Mauer), and team hasn’t brought in a good player from somewhere else since Andre Dawson walked into town. That should tell Theo something about the Cubs front office, which is as soft as a pillow. Always has been.
So if Theo is going to replicate for Chicago what he did in Boston — if he’s going to “play it again” — he can start with cleaning out the scouting stables. And he can tell Cubs fans to stop flying that “L” from a flagpole everytime they lose. Forget Brock for Broglio, forget billy goats, black cats and Brant Brown, forget Bartman and understand this — there isn’t anything lovable about losing.
Okay, okay. Enough of the negativity. It doesn’t take much to see that the problems the Cubs have don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but the greatest game I ever saw in my life took place at Wrigley Field on a hot August night in 2001. The Cubs were in the middle of a pennant race and won the game — and the fans nearly tore the place down. So Theo, listen up: if you thought there was pressure in Boston, wait’ll you get a load of this.
For Phillies Phans this is the apocalypse. Chris Carpenter held the “can’t miss” Ashburns to just three hits, and the upstart Cardinals went on to take the NLDS three games to two in a sparkling 1-0 win in Philadelphia, ending the Phillies post-season dream of another October World Series appearance. Phillies fans were so disappointed, they didn’t even boo.
The Philadelphia loss was as surprising as the poor performance of Charlie Manuel’s team, which couldn’t put together enough hits to cage the Redbirds. “Actually, I don’t know what to say,” Manuel said, following the loss. “I just got through talking to our team, and basically when I look at it, we played 162 games, and definitely we had the best record in baseball.”
But the best record (and the best pitching staff), wasn’t enough to carry the Phillies into the NLCS — with Phillies’ fans describing their team’s elimination as “a crushing disappointment.” The depth of the loss is reflected in the Philadelphia blogosphere: “Thud” was the headline of The Good Phight, while Beerleaguer led its coverage with “Failure In Philly.”
But while baseball’s blogworld focuses on “the Phailure in Philadelphia,” Friday’s loss was more the result of Chris Carpenter’s pitching performance than the poor hitting of Ryan Howard & Company. Carpenter walked none and struck out three, taming Halladay in what Cardinals’ manager Tony LaRussa called “a dream match-up” of Cy Young winners. Carpenter threw 110 pitches, 70 of them for strikes. It was a Phorgettable night in Philly, but not in St. Louis.
Of course, there are teams in baseball that would love to have bragging rights to a 102 win season — including the one right here in Washington. But expectations were so high in Philadelphia that what will follow now is an off-season of recriminations, and an effort to find that one missing piece that Phillies’ fans think they need. It might be ugly. “There are no two ways around it: 2011 is a failure for the Phillies,” Crashburn Alley said. Oh, boo-hoo . . .
The Commissioner of Baseball is objective, right? He’s the caretaker for the game, the objective overseer who makes certain it runs right — and each season his fondest hope is that the best team wins, no matter who it is. But in a most fundamental way, fans of the game know that’s a crock: baseball is a business. At the end the year, what’s important is the bottom line.
Which is why the 2011 Brew Crew are Bud Selig’s nightmare, it’s the team that keeps him awake at night. For the truth is that, if the Yankees and Phillies make it to the World Series, baseball will benefit from television viewer ratings in two of the most important media markets in the U.S., while if the Brewers and Tigers (say) make it to the series, the numbers will . . . well, they’ll be less good.
The numbers don’t lie. Since the mid-1980s, baseball’s post-season television numbers have suffered an overall decline, and it’s worse if a big market team isn’t playing. While the 2009 Phillies-Yankees ratings weren’t any great shakes (as compared to 1986 — when the Mets and Red Sox played each other), they were a damned sight better than 2010. If the Brewers beat the D-Backs, and then the winner of the Phillies-Cardinals tilt, those post-season numbers will continue to slide.
Of course, this view can be totally wrong. The Brewers have turned into one of the most successful teams in the sport, and not just on the field. This year the Brewers set an all-time attendance record, selling 3,068,781 tickets — which made them seventh in MLB in total attendance, and fourth in the N.L. And this in baseball’s smallest metropolitan area.
The story of the Brewers is, in fact, the best business story in the major leagues. After limping into Milwaukee from Seattle in 1970, the Brewers built a fan base and a new ballpark — cultivating a market wedded to the Green Bay Packers in a town with rust belt and failing industries. The man who authored this transition was Bud Selig.
If you watched Tim Kurkjian last night on ESPN, then you know just how close he came to an on-air myocardial infarction. In the history of the game, he said, what viewers just saw was history — the best night of baseball ever of any regular season. The best, as he repeated, in 200,000 games. In fact, he’s right — it might well have been.
Unless, of course, you’re a fan of either the Boston Red Sox or Atlanta Braves. For both of those clubs, and their fans, the “night to remember” was a belly-up sinking that compared with the loss of the “unsinkable” Titanic: it just wasn’t supposed to happen. Fans will focus on the Red Sox, of course, but down in Atlanta the despair was as keenly felt. You only have so many shots at this, and this may be one of the Braves’ last.
“When you’re in a slump as a team, you find a bunch of different ways to lose,” third baseman Chipper Jones said after the Bravos dropped a nail biter to the Phillies. “Bats go silent. You get wild on the mound. You walk in runs. You find different ways to lose and we sure did over the past couple weeks.”
Okay. But still — the most improbable of improbables was not the Braves loss to Philadelphia (let alone the Redbirds whitewashing of the Astros), or even the fact that somehow the Tampa Bay Rays came back to take a 12 inning victory from the Yankees, but Baltimore’s epic ninth inning walk off victory against the Nation. “Now, there’s something you don’t see every day,” the unsinkable Molly Brown said as she saw the Titanic go down, stern first.
And that’s what we all said, last night, when Robert Andino put a Jonathan Papelbon offering just off the glove of Carl Crawford in left field to score Noland Reimold and give the Orioles (the Orioles!) a walk-off 4-3 win in Baltimore. There’s a reason why fans keep their mouths shut when they’re watching a no-hitter in the ninth, just as there’s a reason why you don’t pitch Tim Wakefield eight times in the middle of a divisional race just so he can get his 200th win. (What the hell were they thinking?)
Here’s some other things you don’t ever do, no matter what. You don’t calculate that you have an inside shot just because the Rays are playing the Yankees, you don’t headline that you have “the best team ever” at the beginning of a season, you don’t describe the Iraqi insurgents as “pushovers” — and you don’t call a ship unsinkable when it’s sitting in Belfast Harbor: you don’t flirt with icebergs.
So . . . so don’t rewrite the rules. They remain, the rules. You don’t tempt fate, which is what the Red Sox did all of September, and it’s what they did last night. It’s call hubris, and it’s been around since Homer. “I’m pretty shocked,” Red Sox arm John Lester said. “Not only with the Rays game, but in our game, we’ve got the best closer in baseball. That stuff doesn’t happen to him.” Oh, c’mon. Sure it does. This is baseball.
You would think that if anyone knows the history of the Washington Nationals, it must be Davey Johnson. And yet, immediately after the Nationals clinched a 3-1 last game victory against the Marlins, Johnson told the press that finishing third was not his idea of a great season. He’s right of course, but for many of the rest of us, the 2011 season is accounted a spectacular success — especially when you compare it to where we’ve been.
The best example of the Nats’ improvement came on Wednesday, with rehabbed righty Stephen Strasburg pitching six more-than-solid innings (he held the Marlins to a single hit, while striking out ten), and the Nationals scoring just enough to get their 80th win. That’s eleven more than last year, when the Nats were dead last. If third is “no great shakes,” then just imagine what fifth feels like.
Of course, Nationals’s fans don’t have to imagine it — they’ve lived it. But now, it seems, the era of blanket franchise apologies and the constant talk of building the bankrupt farm system (it’s built), are history. Third place? We’ll take it. Two years ago, at a CFG confab in Houston, we proudly wore our Curly W hats into a local bar, plunging into the midst of a group of Astros fans, who tittered away at our expense. “What does it feel like to root for the worst team in baseball?”
No more. Now that particular honor belongs to the Houston nine, who finished the year with 106 losses. The Nationals are, finally, a good team — even a very good team. They are better than the Marlins or Mets, better than Colorado, or Pittsburgh or Cincinnati or Chicago. You never compare yourselves to losers, the pundits say, but to the best. Yeah, okay. But if 2011 is any indication (and it is), being the best is not that far off.
Let’s Not Get Carried Away: The Nationals need hitting, and in the worst way. Their close-out 3-1 victory came against a last place team that looked like they didn’t wanna be there. How many hits did these “no great shakes” Nats get? Five. That’s the same as the night before. There are free agents to be had, with big bats, but the solution is at home . . .
