jim wrote:richie the reason I like talking about it is because it's interesting to me.
I think it's interesting because it's part of a long-standing discussion about the exposure of younger pitchers, successful rehabilitation, contracts, and a novel problem given a team's presence in a pennant race. It isn't a Nats discussion, but a broader baseball issue.
I think the contract issue is the big one for me. We have a huge struggle between what's right for the agent, what is right for the team, and what is right for the player. All three are kind of stuck in the middle to varying degrees - the agent would benefit by his client getting exposure in the postseason but needs him healthy for a long time for consistent cash flow. Team needs to win now, but they need to win tomorrow too. The player - he's the one really in the middle.
This is a conversation we don't have 30 years ago. The fact we are having it is the interesting part - really demonstrates just how much the game has changed in my lifetime.
I still maintain that Nats FO did a disservice by insisting on their shut down plan and not seemingly looking for a plan B when the Nats were playing so well.
Over a 162 game season, if the Nats had implemented a 6-man rotation and limited SS to a 5-6 inning limit, he would've pitched 135-162 innings. In their 81st game on July 6 they were 48-33, so they Still could've implemented a better plan than hoping things would work out.
Now they have to milk approximately 33 innings out of possibly 10-11 starts (not sure where they are in their rotation). That's before post-season. Not to mention, had they gone to a 6-man rotation, they'd have a starter in a 5-man rotation for when they did shut him down.
What is their plan when he's "shut down"? I know his active roster status was discussed earlier, but what's the plan for the rest of the rotation? Can they call someone up? Bullpen games?
I think it was stupid PR to announce this. They could have planned on shutting him down but not made it public. Then at the inning limit, announce he had a mild strain.
docellis wrote:I think it was stupid PR to announce this. They could have planned on shutting him down but not made it public. Then at the inning limit, announce he had a mild strain.
Richie Allen wrote:I'm fine with the discussion. I don't understand the heated nature of it at times, however.
At it's core this decision is about the integrity of the game. Who is more important, the individual player or the team? Used to be the team, now it's obviously not. It bothers some. It bothers me.
Richie Allen wrote:I'm fine with the discussion. I don't understand the heated nature of it at times, however.
At it's core this decision is about the integrity of the game. Who is more important, the individual player or the team? Used to be the team, now it's obviously not. It bothers some. It bothers me.
I doubt all Washington fans blindly want nothing other than going all in for 2012, though. A lot of Nats fans will want to err on the safe side and shut him down in Sept. It's arguably just as much for the team to not overexpose him this soon after surgery. From what I understand, it's the "team" that is saying they're going to stick to the original plan. If it were up to the player, I'm guessing he'd be out there.
"Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo told Jeff Passan of YahooSports.com that Stephen Strasburg will not exceed 180 innings this season.
Well, that's better than the 160 innings that had been reported earlier this season. Strasburg is currently on pace to throw 184 1/3 frames, so the Nats will have to get creative down the stretch if they want to have him available for the duration of the season. John Lannan could be called up to join the rotation, but adding a sixth starter probably won't be enough to keep Strasburg's innings down enough in order to have him available for postseason play. The Nats have said that when Strasburg is shut down, he'll be shut down for good, so giving him a few weeks of rest and then bringing him back doesn't seem to be an option. "
