Center Field Gate

While the AL champion has not yet been decided, the crowning of the Phillies as N.L. champs sets up a classic I-95 tussle with the Yankees — or maybe it’s the Rocky Balboa vs. Apollo Creed series. Despite the dominance of the Phillies in every aspect of their series with the suddenly sputtering Dodgers, the Ashburns would be decided underdogs in the match-up against the The Evil Empire, whose front line pitching of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte would match-up well against Utley, Howard, Werth and Ibanez. And while the Phillies’ bullpen outclassed the Broxtons, they’d have a tougher time with the middle of the Yanks order. “We’re gonna get it,” Phuzzie manager Charlie Manuel says. We can forgive the over-confidence:  anything can happen in a seven game series and the Phillies are hardly pushovers. Even if they will be (and it’s still a pretty big maybe) facing the class of baseball.

It didn’t use to be this way. For over seven decades the Phillies were the pushovers of the National League — only one step ahead of our very own Washington Senators. As our pals over at Real Dirty Mets Blog point out, the Phils were once the doormats of the league: “From 1918-1948 they were above .500 once. 78-76 in 1932, finishing 4th. In an 8-team league, that was the only time in 31 years they finished above 5th place.” Before winning it all in 1980, the Phillies had appeared in the postseason twice — and lost both times. The Phillies might not have been “first in war, first in peace and last in the National League,” but they were next-to-last; the only thing they had to show for their efforts were a bunch of gamers who entered the hall: Richie Ashburn, Jim Bunning, Jimmie Foxx and Robin Roberts. Not a bad crew, but near-beer when compared to the Dodgers, Giants, and even the Cubs. Even when the Phillies were good they were bad. Baseball fans who know the game well scoff at the Mets collapse of 2007: the ‘64 Phillies led the league by 6.5 and blew it in seven games. They were “the pholding Phillies.” It took them until 1980 to win their first series — a record of futility unmatched even by the North Side Drama Queens, who dominated the game in the early part of the century. It took Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt to turn it around, though it would be another twenty-eight years before the Phillies took another championship.

These are not grandpa’s Phillies. The turn in the franchise is not simply the result of lots of money (their 2009 opening day payroll was a whopping $113 million), or a strong fan base (third in all of baseball), but a reflection of one of baseball’s best front offices. Phillies’ GM Ruben Amaro (Jr.) never stopped building: the 2009 version of the Phils is his handiwork. He added a key piece in the off-season (Raul Ibanez) and two starters that will be the backbone of the staff in the series: Cliff Lee and Pedro Martinez. Even so, it might not be enough. While the Phillies would be favored to humble the Belinskis, it’s doubtful Lee could pitch as well in two games against the Yankees as he did against the Dodgers. And could we really expect Pedro to match his seven inning NLCS effort? Then too, there’s the Phillies bullpen. Scoured clean during the regular season (they were simply awful, and in chaos, in the late going), Brad Lidge was once again Brad Lidge in the Trolley series, keeping the ball away from their best hitters. He would have to do that again, and then some, against the Jeters. Bottom line? In any match-up against the Bombers, the Phillies would have to be Rocky Balboa to win. But it would be exciting.

It’s Not A Motorcycle Sweetie, It’s A Chopper: Mark Lerner just bubbles over about the great progress the Nats have made over the last season, identifying the hiring of Mike Rizzo as one of the five great things that has happened to the team. Agreed. But the real question here (never asked in the on line interview) is whether the owners are willing to shell out what it will take to bring ballplayers to the club. The Nats payroll for 2009 was at $60 million, a little more than half of what the Phillies paid . . . The Lerners should know better than to complain about the media. They can’t win: and it’s hard to argue with columnists who roll their eyes at the obvious penny pinching. The Lerner family says they operate the Nationals as a public trust and are committed to the city. They should be celebrated for that: but the midseason argument that the Lerners have given back never really sounded right. Is that why they bought the team? To be good citizens?

The report of the day has Don Mattingly being interviewed for the Nats managerial job. “You listen to everyone,” Mattingly said about taking a job with a team that is rebuilding. “I’m flattered there’s some organizations out there that think I’m capable of it, or at least talked to me about it. You get to know them, they get to know you, and you see where it goes from there.” Mattingly knows the game and has been angling for a top dugout job since he left baseball. He was the reputed successor to Joe Torre in New York and was angered by the hiring of Joe Girardi. But the knock on Mattingly has nothing to do with his willingness to manage a last place team. The question is: does a last place team really need a guy who’s never been a manager — or wouldn’t the Nats be better off with someone with a few more years under their belt. No matter his experience, Mattingly would be an experiment: and the Nats have had enough of those.

The details of the Strasburg signing are now becoming known. The San Diego State righthander has signed a four year contract for a total $15.1 million guaranteed, with a $7.5 million bonus and $7.6 million in salary. The contract includes a number of unreported incentives. There are unconfirmed reports that the Nationals had weighed in with an offer somewhere in the range of $12.5 million, before upping the total in the waning hours of Monday, just before the trading deadline. This would contradict reports that the Nats had put an offer of between fourteen and sixteen million dollars to Strasburg agent Scott Boras this past weekend. Team officials met with Strasburg several weeks ago and were impressed with him. The Nationals front office is touting the deal — it is the lead story on both the MLB and the Washington Nationals’ team website. With the signing the Nats have completed their most successful draft: signing 13 of their first fifteen picks.

Speaking by telephone to Washington, D.C. sports radio 106.7, a Baseball America reporter said that he had talked to Strasburg, “who seemed out of breath but clearly pleased” that the signing had been completed. The reporter said that Strasburg told him that agreement with the Nationals was reached at 11:58 pm on Monday, just two minutes before the signing deadline. Nationals Journal reports: “For weeks, the pitcher and the organization had been locked into the highest-stakes contract negotiations in amateur history, and the 11th-hour deal left both sides on edge as the midnight deadline approached. Deal done, Strasburg will begin his professional career, and the Nationals will enter an era very much tied to the career of their newest, richest player.”

Despite the recent Nationals team success — a record of 21-20 since July 4 — the signing of Strasburg was seen by many baseball commentators as a litmus test for the struggling franchise, particularly after the Nats failed to sign last year’s top draft pick, pitcher Aaron Crow. As late as Saturday, Nats President Stan Kasten was expressing doubts that the deal would get done. ”With 48 hours to go, I simply have no idea whether we’re going to be able to reach a deal,” Kasten said in an interview with the Associated Press. The signing of Strasburg has given the franchise and its owners reason to celebrate: the team has made a huge, but not bank-busting commitment to the team’s future. There was no question the pressure was on the Nats: NBC Washington was breathless in its use of adjectives: “By midnight tonight, Nats fans will know whether the team they follow will have squandered away a second consecutive first-round draft pick.” Squandered? Well, maybe. But maybe not. The question for the Lerners is whether the calculation they made will be worth it: should Strasburg not pan out or get injured, the Nats ownership may feel that the only thing squandered was the money they spent for no return. 

Strasburg may well be a once-in-a-generation talent — a pitcher who can immediately jump from college ball to “the show” (a Ryan Zimmerman of pitchers) — or he could be like those other pitchers drafted with the first overall picks who made their way to the big leagues in their first year: David Clyde (drafted in 1973) and Ben MacDonald, drafted in 1989. We won’t know until we see him pitch for the first time at Nationals Park, and we won’t know even then. But this we do know: owners that want their teams to compete in the majors pony up. The Lerners had to show that they knew this and were willing to spend the money to play with the big boys in New York, Boston, Philly, L.A. and Chicago. Nats fans should be overjoyed. After months of saying they were committed to putting a better team on the field, and spending the money to do it — the Lerners showed they meant it.  

Mark Lerner Congratulates Stan Kasten on Strasburg Pick

The Nats got their man with the first pick in the MLB Draft last night — but can they sign him? It is a “possible landmark case,” writes The Washington Post’s Dave Sheinin, “bringing together baseball’s most notorious agent, a pitcher who has been called the best prospect in history and the worst franchise in the game—all within a draft system that has been criticized as unmanageable and unfair.” The case is a “landmark” because Strasburg agent Scott Boras believes the San Diego State phenom should command the same amount of money as Daisuke Matsuzaka, who signed a $52 million deal with the Red Sox two years ago.

The Nats have until August 17 to sign Strasburg and Nats officials are making positive noises that a deal can get done. Former GM Jim Bowden recently told an XM radio interviewer that Strasburg would be signed at the last minute and that he would sign for somewhere around $15 million. Bowden may be right, but the money for Strasburg may go much higher — because Boras might be calculating that he has the Nats where he wants them. They need to sign Strasburg after failing to sign Aaron Crow last year, and the team’s poor play this season has put pressure on the Lerners to show that they are willing to spend money to build a contender.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was all smiles during the draft last night, but he’s watching the negotiations closely. Major League Baseball does not have a salary cap like other professional sports, but Selig has been trying to hold down signing bonuses, confidentially assigning each team a suggested bonus and salary level for a team’s “slot.” Selig’s suggestions are just that and many teams ignore them. Even so, Selig’s strategy is transparent: he wants to establish major league baseball’s position on compensation for first year players prior to the opening of negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement in 2011. Selig has toughened baseball’s position on the issue; the Commissioner has reportedly recommended that teams cut their cap by ten percent because of the economy. If the Nats sign Strasburg for close to what Boras wants it would drive up signing bonuses and salaries for future draft picks, which could put Selig and baseball in a tough spot in 2011. “Privately, baseball has already said the draft is a major priority in the next collective bargaining. Signing bonuses have gotten out of hand,” an MLB executive told the Toronto Star.

That may be true, but MLB executives who’s job it is to watch their team’s pocketbooks had to be pleased that the bottom fell out on Aaron Crow, who the Nats picked at #9 last year. But the Nats could not sign Crow and the former Mizzou righthander has been pitching for the Independent League Fort Worth Cats. Crow fell to the Kansas City Royals at #12 this year — and will  command a lot less money than he would have gotten from the Nats in 2008. Drafting an unsigned player from a previous draft is a Royals habit — they did that with right-hander Luke Hochevar in ‘06, after he failed to sign with the Dodgers in 2005. It’s a clever strategy; it saves money and it dampens first year bonuses: while Strasburg has leverage on the Nats, the Royals have leverage on Crow. ”What’s he going to do, go back and pitch for Ft. Worth?” a commentator on MLB Network asked.

The Washington Post’s Tom Boswell offered what has to be considered the most sweeping indictment of the Nats ownership in the short history of the Washington franchise. In a column that appeared in The Washington Post on Friday morning, Boswell wrote that the problems with the Nats start with the ownership: with those responsible for putting the product on the field. Sooner or later, he implies, you have to conclude that the team stinks because the owners stink: “When problems go this deep, the causes should be sought at the top, not the bottom,” Boswell notes. “Accountability doesn’t lie with a pitching rotation full of rookies or a bullpen built on tissue-thin résumés and prayer. In the past, the Nats have had injury excuses and cheerful long-term timetables to shield them. But now the blame — and the solutions, if any — surely must lie at the top with the billionaire Lerner family and team president Stan Kasten.”

We’ve heard some of this before: but never quite so brazenly, or from a baseball insider who almost always knows more than he writes. Which can only mean that the situation is worse than Boswell is letting on — hard as that is to believe. Boswell’s message is transparent: the penny-pinching Lerners are more worried about turning a profit than fielding a winning team. Which means they will end up with neither. Kasten (brought on to help the new owners learn a little about baseball), has either been unwilling or unable to stand up to them. The result — catalogued with painful accuracy by the Post’s top baseball writer (and one of the best baseball journalists in the country) — has been a series of mistakes that have made the Nats the worst team in baseball and emptied Nationals Park of patient fans.

Nats Fans Are Voting With Their Feet: They're Staying Away

Boswell provides a sobering antidote to those of us who have been arguing for patience: Kasten has shown that he knows how to build teams, but hasn’t been given the chance. Still (Boswell notes), the fault is as much his as the Lerners: he shielded and enabled them. Finally Kasten took a stand — he forced the signing of Adam Dunn, added payroll in a trade with Florida, and signed the face of the franchise, Ryan Zimmerman, to a long-term deal. But Kasten’s courage came too late. The team had shunned possible no-brainer signings (of Jon Garland and Orlando Hudson), were living through the collapse of Lastings Milledge and had decided to live with a pitching staff of kids and castoffs. Thusly, Boswell’s indictments.

The impact of this goes well beyond either the team on the field or the plunge in attendance. The Lerners must now scramble to retrieve their credibility. Which means that Stephen Strasburg’s agent — Scott Boras — will ask top dollar for his star pitcher, knowing the Lerners will have to meet his demands or face public humiliation. Some sweet justice: the Lerners’ penchant for counting paperclips will either end up costing them millions more than they otherwise might have paid or it will make them the laughstock of the league. Or both. Nor are other franchises likely to show sympathy for the Nats’ plight: Nick Johnson, Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham and Austin Kearns are all tradeable commodities, but their value is dependent on the needs of other teams — and not their inherent value. They won’t bring much in return and their departure will rob the team of the only thing it has: hitters. Finally, the Lerners reputation as tightwads has now been transmitted to a fan base that has lost faith in their ability to get it right. That’s going to be hard to retrieve. 

Boswell ends his column with a series of questions: “Did the Nats actually bottom out last winter? Are we seeing the delayed comeuppance now for the previous 2 1/2 years? Or are the Nats, with the oddly fitted Lerner-Kasten combination at the top, a franchise that is systemically dysfunctional?” And he answers: “Stay tuned.” Boswell is right to point to “the top” in laying blame. My only argument with him is that he doesn’t go far enough. The Lerners aren’t at the top – that position is held by Commissioner Bud Selig, who was responsible for deciding which of the eight ownership groups would get to buy the team. He picked the Lerners. Maybe he got it wrong.