Ask Boswell

Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell was online Friday, Jan. 9 at 3 p.m. ET to take your questions about the NFL playoffs, the Caps, the Hot Stove league and his latest columns.

The transcript follows.

Boswell Discussion Archives

Boswell Column Archives

____________________

Virginia Beach, Va.: Hi, Boz... Re Chico Harlan's story today in The Post that the Nats could end up with a 2009 roster similar to last year ... Will remaining free agents and their agents end up having to take deals for much less than they're asking? After all, the economy is in trouble.

washingtonpost.com: For Nats, Prices Must Come Down (Post, Jan. 9)

Tom Boswell: I've been chuckling ever since the news yesterday that the Nats say (leak) that they are no longer expecting to sign a major free agent -- meaning Dunn, Hudson or Randy Wolf.

I told an Nats exec, "Congratulations on giving up. I'm glad to see things are finally getting serious."

He burst out laughing. Couldn't catch himself.

This is the season of misdirection. When a team that SHOULD be interested and HAS been interested, and suddenly sees the market turn in its direction, says that it is no longer interested (much), all you can do is laugh.

No, the Nats are not as interested in Dunn, Hudson and Wolf as they were 72 hours ago. They are MORE interested.

What did the Red Sox say about Teixeira at the moment when they seemed most likely to get him? "We have apparently been outbid and are out of the running."

What did the Yanks say about that mystery high bid for Tex? Cashman: "Not us." Then, who makes the opportunistic big bid -- why, the Yankees.

The only team that ever really got fed up and told the truth was the Angels who really DID get mad and really did decide that they didn't want Tex. When the Tex camp came back to the Angels -- hoping for their last best offer -- they got the raspberry. And Tex never got to make a final decision on the team that some still think was his favorite.

Dunn, Hudson and Wolf are all in a tough spot. The market with players just like them is glutted. Manny Ramirez and Bobby Abreu are more desirable to a contender than Dunn because they are better hitters (not 170 K's a year). Orlando Cabrera is a middle infielder, similar to Hudson, who's still on the market. As for Wolf, look who's still available: Oliver Perez, Ben Sheets, Andy Pettitte, Braden Looper, Jon Garland, etc.

When you take the flack in public for saying, in effect, we don't have to sign an of those guys at THOSE prices, then you increase your leverage.

It's standard baseball negotiating. The Nats are probably doing it right. Believe me, "We don't need 'em," usually means, "Were in the drivers seat, finally, and were probably going to get one of 'em -- at a better price than we dreamed."

But the Nats only get a good grade if, in the end, they actually GET a significant player that they need.

In case you didn't see it, I'll add my "Baseball Insider" post from 1/6. It all still applies. The only thing that has changed is that the Nats, like lots of other teams, know just how much of a buyer's market this is and can afford to take a tough position. (They hope.) Here it is:

Dave's got the Burrell signing pegged perfectly. This deal, at a sensible price, means that the Nationals can afford Adam Dunn. And, if necessary, they can probaby still pay the "Loser's Premium" that a 102-loss team often has to shell out to grab a free agent.

The Rays may have gotten a bit by a Winner's Discount in signing Burrell for $16-million for two years. But the market has, nonetheless, been set right where the Nats should want it.

Several points are of interest when we try to figure out how much Dunn is worth in the current (suddenly deflated) market for proven sluggers in their prime who are durable, walk a lot, only hit near .250, strike out a ton, have a solid attitude and play poor defense at a corner outfield spot.

First, Dunn, 29, and Burrell, 32, who just signed for $16-million for two years with the Rays, are as statistically identical as two players can be.

Over the last nine years starting at age 23 (including a few games at AAA in '00 to give him full credit for durability), Burrell has averaged 150 games, 520 ab, 28 hrs, 95 RBI, 91 walks, 145 Ks, .257 average, .367 on-base % and .485 slugging average.

Over the last seven year starting at age 22, Dunn has averaged 152 games, 518 at bats, 37 hrs, 90 rbi, 108 walks, 169 K's, .247 average, .367 on-base % and .518 slugging avg.

Last season Burrell earned $14,250,000 in Philly, Dunn $13,000,000 in Cincy.

Dunn has a few edges. He's hit 40 homers the last five years. That's worth some box office. He's three years young. But Burrell has proved he can hit for a contender and survive in a tough town where expectations have always been high as a No. 1 overall draft pick.

Milton Bradley, who just signed with the Cubs for $30-million for three years, is a tricky comparable to Burrell and Dunn. Contemporary stats, like OPS, say Bradley has been a somewhat better offensive player over the last six years than either and he can play centerfield, also a big plus. But Bradley's got plenty of baggage and (a bigger worry), has missed lots of games in his career, averaging only 357 abs the last six seasons.

At any rate, if Burrell is worth $16-million for two years and the 30-year-old Bradley gets $30-million for three years, then the Nats can afford Dunn. At "today's prices," and considering Dunn's good health and consistency, as well as the possibilty that he mght switch to first base if needed, it might be wise to accomodate Dunn on length of contract if that will close the deal.

To those who may nags at Dunn's (very real) faws, just a reminder from previous posts and chats: the five players whose careers most resemble Dunn at the same age are Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, Harmon Killebrew, Rocky Colavito and Reggie Jackson. This guy is Frank Howard -- but better. You want him for lots of reasons -- including credibility with fans and future potential free agents, as well as well-established baseball value.

_______________________

Section 111: Bos-

I love your coverage of the Nats and I usually agree with most of your points. Please tell me this news that the Nationals are planning on "dropping out of free agent sweepstakes" is just a ploy to get Adam Dunn to drop his asking price?

There is no way we can go into another season with Nick Johnson at first. He is always injured, hasn't even picked up a bat and has played 38 games the last two seasons. I appreciate all he has done for us, but when he makes his monthly DL visits, we're forced to play a player out of position or call up a AAAA retread.

Dunn has a solid OBP and come on, 40 HRs in each of the last 5 seasons? He's not a superstar, but he still gives us that middle of the order threat.

I am all for "The Plan", but you need studs in their prime to protect the young guns. If right now - after a season of 102 losses, terrible TV/radio ratings, low attendance numbers and a sour taste for losing - is not the right time, just when do the Lerners plan on spending money?

The time is now, before it's too late.

Thanks.

Tom Boswell: Since there's a lot of interest in this...

There is a glut of corner outfielders on the market. Say the Dodgers end up getting Manny (at a price he's going to hate) and the Angels end up with Abreu, who fits their style of attack, sees a ton of pitches, has a high OBP and still has a little speed left to keep from clogging up the bases for their speed attack. Neither should want/need Dunn whose Ks and lack of speed would be just what the Angels should not want. Look at all the old OFers (or DHs) -- granted, not as good as Dunn -- who can't find any home: M Alou, Garrett Anderson, Jim Edmonds, Cliff Floyd, Giambi (near a mere one-year deal at a salary cut with Oakland).

The message is everywhere. Ibanez deal -- $31.5M-for-three-years -- was the GOOD deal (though not for the Phils)! That should be the ballpark for the top end of the kind of deal the Nats may offer Dunn. I doubt very much he'll d as well anywhere else. We'll see.

Obviously, if the Nats have simply pulled in their horns, that would be a huge disappointment. But it's (almost) inconceivable that they would pull BACK at exactly the moment the market is racing TOWARD them.

The Nats real serious offseason is fast approaching, not receding. That doesn't mean they'll come out of it well. But they should.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Bos, I know this isn't your beat, but a couple of questions about college football. How gutless are the media voters to go so strongly with Florida in the AP poll when USC (1 vote for #1?), Utah and Texas have what I consider equally legitimate claims to the top spot?

Second, what am I missing in the "Tim Tebow is a legend" story? Last night in the second half, I saw a Florida team come on to win with the O-line winning the battle. Tebow was fine but he wasn't the difference maker in my eyes. Yet, this morning, I'm reading that he cemented his legendary status. What did you see?

Tom Boswell: Until the middle of the third quarter I thought the game was such a sleeper that, after anticipating it for days, I watched "CSI" with my wife. From 7-7 in the 3rd, it was entertaining, but nothing special. Tebow was excellent. (Why did it take decades for football to "invent" the FORWARD shovel pass as an option in the option offense.) But I didn't see any "legendary" performance.

I'm conflicted about the BCS. A playoff system is obviously "correct" and "more fair." But it's so much fun now. College football, to me, isn't as appealing as the NFL. But it has BETTER ARGUMENTS. If constant (silly) controversy is actually one of the strongest aspects of the product you are selling, why kill it?

If you had a bowl system, how much would it damage (national) interest in games in September and October? Maybe a lot.

The world financial system needs to be fixed.

The BCS? I'm not so sure. Besides, anything that gives you a chance to laugh at the high percentage of yahoos in college football can't be all bad.

BTW, on the Truly Bad scale, college football announcers are in a class of their own. In fact, they're so bad that nobody bothers to parody them. How could you?

_______________________

Eye St. NW: The Nats are always looking to upgrade their pitching. It appears that Iraqi show-throwing journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi may be available, as soon as he is released from prison. You've got to like the way he brushed our president back from the podium not once but twice; came right after him. And if you look at the tape, there was good movement on the shoe. Can we get Jimbo on this?

Tom Boswell: Pay the man, Shirley.

_______________________

Fun Street: Tom, Happy New Year! Loved your column on the Caps, and don't feel bad about not recalling who won the Stanley Cup last year, I could not tell you who won the NBA title.

My question is what you perceive the key differences are between redeveloping a franchise like the Caps did and what the Nats face?

Thanks and Let's Rock the Red!

Tom Boswell: The key difference, so far, is that the Caps -- while doing a lot of things right -- got very fortunate to move up in the draft and get Ovechkin. I think they jumped the maximum number of spots possible. And then he turned out to be as good as his hype and a fabulous teammate.

Will the Nats be rewarded for being very bad by getting a great -- not merely good -- player as a reward for their misery? It might be Stephen Strasburg with the No. 1 overall this year. Though, as I've said, he looked like a very fine Verlander-level prospect when I saw him in China, but not the next Feller-Seaver-Clemens.

That's one reason the Nats were willing to go so high, and get 100 percent serious about Teixeira. He was their Ovechkin-like "franchise changer." Not he's not (nearly) as good as No. 8. But, if the Nats had gotten as lucky in the Tex Chase as the Caps did in the Ovechkin Lottery, it would have altered the whole picture in lots of good ways.

_______________________

Waldorf, Md.: Is this the year Jim Rice gets in the Hall of Fame? Will anyone besides Rickey go in this year?

BTW, I can't WAIT to hear Rickey's induction speech. Could be an all-timer!

Tom Boswell: I'm rooting for Rice just so we can see Jim pound Rickey into the podium like a rail spike if his speech lasts more than two hours. (Hey, if he threatened to stuff me in a trash can 30 years ago, what will he do to "I am the greatest.")

Seriously, Rice deserves it, in my book, because he was the truly dominant hitter in the AL for a number of years. The discussion was, "Who's No. 2?" He wasn't just great, he was the BEST for several years in row. But, because his career was fairly short, he's a close call, I'll grant. He didn't lose my vote, back when Post scribes still voted for HOF, but he probably did alienate some writers.

_______________________

Nats season tickets: Bos, Do you know status of Nats season ticket holders for 2009 season? Just wondering if the 102 loses as well as the economy has hurt the franchise?

Thanks.

Tom Boswell: At latest count, I think they're up to 37.

If they don't sign somebody soon, we may see this promotion: "Buy Two Tickets to Opening Day, Get June-July-and-August Free."

Even I canceled my season tickets, though I've taken a smaller number of games in better seats in a friend's group. Still, they'll only get about 50 percent as much "ticket revenue" out of me this season.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Who has the greater chance of escaping the cellar next season, the Nationals or the O's?

Tom Boswell: In business, few things are better than weak competition. Same is true in baseball. And two teams that the Nats play 36 times-a-year are absolutely falling apart -- Atlanta and Florida. Combine that with normal health for the Nats, a good Willingham-Olsen trade and whatever gets done the rest of the winter -- and the Nats should find it almost impossible not to improve next season.

The Braves are in chaos. On top of the Furcal fiasco, look at Dave Sheinin's Baseball Insider blog on the N.L. East -- especially Chipper Jones total rip of the Atlanta front office today after John Smoltz -- feeling disrespected -- signed with the Red Sox after 21 years in Atlanta.

The Marlins have no new park on the horizon and, so, no new future on the horizon either.

Imagine what Washington's chances would be of getting a team -- which required a new stadium -- if the credit crisis of '07-'08-'09 had arrived just a few years earlier.

Just wondered if chatters had any views on the final cost of Nationals Park being $693 million -- slightly less than 10 percent over-budget due to excess cost of land, as well some overrun on environmental cleanup issues. My sense was that everybody, at the time, knew that land and cleanup were the loopholes and that coming in $62M over the District cap is pretty close to the "whisper number" in '04-'05.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Speaking of announcers...If I had to hear one more trite phrase about Saint Tim Tebow and how he walks on water outside the football stadium I was gonna barf!

I'll stipulate that he's a faithful Christian and that he has a rare commitment to his faith (including John 3-16 on his eye black). One "up close and personal segment" and then let it rest!! But come on -- the story should be on the field!

Tom Boswell: Times change. In Sunday schol, etc., I was taught that charity, piety and all the other virtues were best kept private to prevent against the sin of pride.

In recent years, the sin of pride has been repealed. Lucky we don't have to worry about it any more.

At times, piety in athletes can be a case of to-much-information. Ignatius Philip Rivers (Chargers QB), for example, is a public advocate of chastity.

_______________________

Washington: Less than 10 percent over budget sounds not too bad by pretty much any standards -- whether you're talking about a stadium, a movie production or a wedding reception. Are people complaining about this?

Tom Boswell: No. It's just that the info became public this week. The $693M included $20 from the owners. But that does not, as I understand it, include the $40-to-$50M in "extras" that the Lerners added.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Hi Tom - at work so I can't look it up, but my memory is that folks like Bill James, etc. would argue that Rice's success was due in large part to where he was in the batting order. Good BA, but not a very good OBP and the RBIs a function of having people on IFO him. I think their argument was that Rice wasn't really the best hitter on the Red Sox -- not as good as, say, Dwight Evans. Comments?

BTW, did you see Bill James' article on the BCS on your sister site www.slate.com - very good!

washingtonpost.com: Boycott the BCS! (Slate, Jan. 7)

Tom Boswell: Just rewatched the "Hank Greenberg Story" on TV. One of his teammates said that the thing he loved most in life, including women (he was a "matinee idol" type) was RBI.

Greenberg was very articulate (as always) talking about the value of hitting in the clutch, how most games turned on a few key at bas and how the big HIT, not the big home run, necessarily, was the most imporant thing in baseball.

The walk and on-base percentage were underrated for generations. I was one of the (many) people who beat the drum for its importance. But it is now overrated. I have no doubt of it. It's just another insight that, over time, become a cliche until, finally, it is blindly worshiped.

Over the decades, stats change much less than I'd have thought. It seems that, despite what coaches or teams may prefer in hitting styles, baseball players draw just as many -- or as few -- walks as they ever did. Some players walk more than others. It's their baseball "nature." And some drive in runs better than others.

If you asked everybody in the Hall of Fame what they thought of the idea that a player -- Rice -- might be kept out of the Hall, despite great RBI, total base and batting average stats, because he didn't WALK enough, they wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. And they'd be right.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Bos: Not to say you're old or anything like that, but I understand that Tim Tebow's jump pass harkens back to an old-time football player named Harry Gilmer. Is that a fair comparison?

If so, why don't any other QBs try this? There are certainly plenty of athletic QBs out there now who could throw a five-yard jump pass.

Tom Boswell: I didn't mean the jump pass. I meant the forward pitch (often to the tight end, in Florida's case) as the QB goes down the line running the option and making his reads.

Thanks for clarifying.

_______________________

Davidsonville, Md.: Seriously, though, what would have happened to the Redskins if they had kept Norv and let things settle in and developed some players and a system ... and ... oh, yeah, that owner. As Emily Latella always said: "Never mind."

Tom Boswell: Norv is probably better than his career record (about 77-95-1 from memory) due to early bad teams in Washington as well as the miserable Raiders. But he's probably not much better. Fine guy. Nice that he's had three such big wins in a row to cap the Chargers run from 4-8.

But, from a Redskins perspective, I don't think Norv is the One That Got Away.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: I was wondering how it is possible you did not know who won the 2008 Stanley Cup? I understand hockey is not your main sport, but come on.

Tom Boswell: Actually, I had wrist surgery, then was on heavy pain killers for a week during the Stanley Cup last year. So, that's the reason I didn't know it was the Red Wings.

Now, about all those other years....

See you all next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.