The Nationals’ injury bug has been well documented this year. Luckily (I guess you can say), the Nats are lucky that the bug hasn’t hit the pitching staff as hard as it has hit rest of the team. As long as the rotation is healthy the Nats can like tread water waiting for the return of some key players, like Michael Morse who is expected to return June 8. As we look down on the farm for the Nats who are some guys in Harrisburg or Syracuse that could help the Nats continue to keep their head above water in the NL East?

Corey Brown, OF, Syracuse: Brown is 27 year old minor league veteran who is having the best year of his career batting .281 and 7 home runs. He had a cup of coffee with the Nats  last year but failed to get on base in three plate appearances. Perhaps with a second chance Brown could help supplement some the Nats starters.

Jarrett Hoffpauir, 3B, Syracuse: The 28 year old veteran has had opportunities in the past with the Cardinals and Blue Jays, and with the way he’s hitting this year could earn another shot with the Nats.  Currently Hoffpauir is batting .321 with 13 RBI for the SkyChiefs.

Jeff Kobernus, 2B, Harrisburg: The 23 year old Kobernus is doing some big things in Pennsylvania’s capital this year. Kobernus .310 with 7 RBI and 24 stolen bases. The middle infield remains solid for the Nats but Kobernus is certainly a guy to keep an eye on.

Eury Perez, OF, Harrisburg: Perez is a member of the Nats 40-man roster but is having a rough time in AA by just batting .234. Nonetheless, the 21 year old still is a talented young ball player who could come in to help the Nationals if their outfield thins out any more.

By DC Staff Writer John Manuel:

The 10 Things we like about Bryce Harper after 10 days in the Majors:

1. The Debut:

One day notice was given to the baseball world two Fridays ago that Harper would make his debut the following day versus the Dodgers.  He didn’t crank a home run, but it was a show that Saturday night.  Harper’s ripped double over the center fielder’s head was the kind of shot everyone expects for years to come.  Then gunning down a Dodger at home only to have Wilson Ramos drop the ball.  A late inning loss but a bright start for #34.

2. The Walk:

Never has a walk which ended up in a loss been talked about on sports radio as much.  Game 2 of his career vs. LA again, the 9th inning 1-2 count where Bryce battled and eventually walked and became a much needed baserunner down 2-0.  I believe Harper showed many in the baseball world that 19 is only a number and he has a lot more maturity as a player.  The Nationals organization saw this, and now the rest of the country has started to.

3. The Look:

There's a lot to love about Bryce Harper and what he means for the Nats. Here are our 10 favorite things...

What’s with the haircut?  Actually I think its great, although my first thought was the Boz.  Hopefully Harper’s movie career will be better, which we hope won’t start for 20 years or so from now.  First look, you think punk kid wanting attention, but his play and demeanor has been the opposite.  I can barely remember when I was 19 and I know I couldn’t handle the day to day.  Its cool to have a trademark image.  I would rather talk about that than debating why a bar served my relapsed centerfielder and what he was doing in bar bathroom.

4. The Pickup Softball Game:

Maybe my favorite of the first ten days of Bryce Harper.  Taking a couple swings on the mall was great stuff.  Washington sports have changed a lot quickly adding guys like Bryce Harper, RG3 and I would have to include John Wall’s first pitch at Nats Park last summer.

5. The Move to the 3rd Spot:

One thing is clear, Davey Johnson believes in Harper already.  Started his first game batting 7th and now is already hitting 3rd.  And he should be there.  With Zimmerman coming back this may change but I would expect him to be no lower than 5.  Even most phenoms aren’t put this quickly into a position like he was.  Most stay 6-7-8 range to get comfortable.

6. The Stats:

So far batting .308 with an on base percentage of .424.  Good stuff.  Has not hit a home run yet but has doubled already 5 times.  The homers will come and probably come often.  More walks than strikeouts and one famous steal (which I will get to).  Impressive by the numbers so far.

7. The National TV Game:

I know this was probably scheduled before the call up since the Phillies and the Nats had promise coming into the season.  But what perfect timing for ESPN.  And what a crazy game.  It almost feels like the Nats didn’t lose after everything that happened.  It was great to see either the Nationals or Orioles get the spot light, although the O’s tried to steal it by playing 17 innings on Sunday.  One down and many more nationally televised games to go over the next few years.

8. The Bean Ball:

And to the game itself.  ”Old School” Cole Hamels beams Harper is in first at bat.  Was it intentional?  Hamels answered that after the game.  All he did was start a new rivalry for DC sports which is outstanding.  There was no need to plunk Harper and it was bush league move, not old school.  At least the Nats came back at him in his first at bat.  I agree with everything Mike Rizzo said on Monday concerning Hamels.  It may not matter for Hamels who can bolt to the highest bidder this winter, but there is now a Nats/ Phillies rivalry.  For the next series do you think about bringing back the “Meat Hook” for some muscle since these teams may go at it.

9. The Steal of Home:

I said earlier the pickup softball game was my favorite.  I was wrong, the steal of home is.  For Harper to steal home on Hamels moments after he plunked him sent a message how he is no normal rookie.  Stealing home is always a show no matter who does it but as your first professional steal was Jordan-like.  From the instincts to the execution the steal will be remembered for years to come.  I can see it many years from now Stuart Scott Jr. hosting the Sportscenter Top 10 Plays of Bryce Harpers Hall of Fame career and seeing it again.

10. The Potential:

Nats fans have had it tough the first few years in DC but this is a new time.  First you got Zimmerman, then Strasburg and now Harper.  Harper will be a star and many would argue he already is.  The excitement to have him in the middle of the lineup for at least the next 6 years and hopefully more.  Its only been 10 days, but we have already seen a lot to like about Bryce Harper.

Check out Fanspeak’s DC Sports Coverage HERE!

While not landing Prince Fielder stung a bit for the Nationals, their move yesterday to sign SP Edwin Jackson did help take some of that away. Now Jackson’s impact can’t replace a guy like Fielder, either on the field or at the box office, but the move has such genius to it, that you can’t help to love it.

Jackson was considered a primary free agent target, and one of the best pitchers on the market this year. He’s 28, and has averaged about 206 innings, in his last three seasons. While there had always been some knocks on Jackson, his production, age and durability had him looking at between a 4-6 year contract that should average between $14-16 million a year. Those types of numbers seemed even more likely after Jackson’s former teammate Mark Buehrle, a pitcher who had a far more distinguished career, but who’s numbers were below Jackson’s these past 3 years (and is 4 years older) got a 4 year $58 million deal. Instead the Nationals land Jackson for 1 year at a reported $10 million.

Now in other sports a 1-year deal might not be a good thing, but in baseball and for pitchers particularly it can be a great thing. With baseball contracts fully guaranteed, a team should want to limit the years even more so than the actual money. For example with Buehrle, it would be far safer for a team to give him a two year- $32 million deal ($16 million average) over a 4 year $58 million average ($14.5 average). The reasoning is that Buehrle is likely to still be very effective these next two years, but beyond that it is a bit more murky. The chances of Buehrle being worth even close to that $14.5 million average (and in reality the contract is backloaded so it is more) in years 3 and 4 are pretty slim. For Jackson him being younger might give you the confidence of him being effective for 3 or 4 years, but to go longer is dangerous. The fact that the Nationals were able to only get him at one year, below his perceived market rate is pretty impressive.

Now normally if you want any top level or even moderate level pitcher you don’t have a choice but to offer 3 plus years, but here is where the Nationals were smart. They saw a depressed market for Jackson as teams were leery of giving him big money and big years, so they swooped in and offered him a one year shot to build up his free agent value for 2013. The Nationals essentially picked up a pitcher for just 66 cents on the dollar, and avoided a long term risky agreement.

With this contract the Nationals essentially have zero risk. If Jackson is ineffective or injured, it is only a one year commitment (at a below market rate), and if he is effective the Nationals have one of three options. If the Nationals aren’t in the postseason hunt by the trade deadline, they can always look to flip Jackson for a couple prospects. Or the Nationals could look to work out an extension with him, at a good rate for both sides. And if Jackson wants to test the open market the Nationals should land a compensation pick by offering him arbitration next year.

While some might question the wisdom of signing a guy like Jackson for a year, when the Nationals are probably a year away from being a true contender he helps them in a lot of ways. If everything goes right for Washington and they are contending this year, they won’t be put in a position to have to overpay for a starter at the trade deadline. If everything goes wrong, he can be a valuable trade chip. He’s a 200 inning work horse, on a team whose top two starters are likely facing inning limits this year. He’s also a veteran with postseason experience (and despite not making it with the Tigers and White Sox, both of those teams were in the hunt all year). Finally, Jackson buys the Nationals some respectability.

Washington might not be a true contender just yet, but you feel that they are starting to move in the right direction. Jackson can help Washington get over that .500 mark, and hopefully break through to a fan base that has yet to fully embrace them. Now up until this point it hasn’t been easy for the Washington fan base to rally around such stars as Jason Bergmann, Christian Guzman, Dimitri Young etc. (and those are some of the high water marks), now though there are players you can really get behind. So if the Nationals start winning and competing, I think the fans will flock to them pretty quickly. Even if Jackson is a one year rental, his presence can help the Nationals reach that goal.

Earlier this week Fox Sports Ken Rosenthal suggested that when it comes to the Prince Fielder rumors you should ‘Follow the Money’. While Rosenthal brought up some great points, I think there are other areas that can be explored when it comes to the Nationals financial state. While the assumption of ‘following the money’ is to look forward (which we will), I think it is better to start with looking backwards.

This year the new look Miami Marlins with a brand new stadium are poised to spend nearly $200 million in payroll the next two years (they have already $157 committed and that doesn’t include any more signings, arbitration cases or minimum salaries, so it could be much higher). By comparison in the 4 years since entering their new stadium the Nationals have spent a combined $254 million in payroll (based on their opening day totals). The Nationals highest single season payroll ($68 million), is lower than what the Marlins are paying this year to the 10 players under contract ($74 million total, doesn’t include arbitration cases or minimum players). Now it made some sense for Washington to be frugal in their spending as they simply didn’t have the foundation that would have warranted bringing in a number of big name free agents.

Now though with a young cheap corps that includes pitchers Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, Gio Gonzalez, Drew Storen, and Tyler Clippard, as well as fielders Wilson Ramos, Danny Espinosa, Ian Desmond and Michael Morse, to say nothing of uber prospect Bryce Harper, the Nationals have the makings of a talented team that could contend for the next decade. Especially with established players Ryan Zimmerman and Jayson Werth in the middle of the Nationals lineup (assuming of course both return to form). With that much assembled talent, the Nationals are now in the perfect position to spend.

Now the counter-argument against signing Fielder this week has been, ‘well they won’t have enough money to afford Fielder, Werth and Ryan Zimmerman’ (Zimmerman is only under contract for the next two years). That simply doesn’t seem to be true. For one thing Werth’s contract shouldn’t scare the Nationals away from spending again. If one seemingly bad contract (and if Werth does improve it won’t be that bad for the next 3-4 years), stopped a team from handing out others, then the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cubs, Mets, White Sox, Angels and Dodgers wouldn’t have near the payrolls they have, because they all have multiple bad contracts that haven’t worked out in the past. By the same token they all have had really good contracts that have helped them reach the postseason.

Also, since the Nationals have been making money these last 4 years since Nats Park has been open, they do have some extra cash lying around. Don’t believe me? Well in the time the Nationals since the Nationals ballpark has opened, they have essentially made their payroll before selling a single ticket, concession or advertising space. The Nationals have spent roughly $254 million, but in that time they’ve made $29 million a year from their MASN contract, roughly $32 million a year from the MLB central fund (this is the even split between teams from their national TV and Radio deals, as well as Merch sales and media marketing). That is roughly $244 million, but the Nationals also have a local radio contract that is estimated to pay them about $2 million a year, so their total is about $252 million. Now in fairness there are 10′s of millions of extra dollars in expenditures for a MLB team each year. From player benefits, travel, coaching/management and scouting salaries, to say nothing of the MLB Draft signing bonuses. The thing is the 7.9 million fans the Nationals have drawn these last 4 years, and the revenue form sponsorship’s, concessions and their MASN ownership revenue, would probably cover Fielder’s contract even after paying for all expenses (meaning separate from their current payroll). Now that is unrealistic, as the Nationals have other areas where they can continue to spend money, but it shows that they could defray the cost of the Fielder signing, and increase payroll without a single dime being added to their revenues.

And again even if we momentarily ignore the argument of the ‘Fielder effect’ on ticket sales and sponsorship dollars, we see that the Nationals will be adding quite a few ‘dimes’ to their revenues. The Nationals MASN contract is up this year, and it is expected to ‘double or triple’ according to Rosenthal’s report (which makes sense given the explosion of RSN contracts for teams these last few years). While it is unclear what it will end up as, you are talking between another $30-60 million a year. On top of that MLB will be renegotiating their current National TV deals in 2013, and the industry expects that the deal could even be double. So that $32 million from the Central fund ($20 million of which comes from the TV deal) could quickly be over $50 million. And that doesn’t include the other part of the Central Fund increasing in the coming years as merchandise sales continue to climb, and the MLB Media Rights continues to become a more valuable property (i.e. streaming games, internet advertising etc.). That could add another $5-10 million (and that appears to be a very guarded estimate) added to the Nationals revenues. All told we are talking at least a $55 million per year, increase, and in actuality it could be closer to $90 million per year.

That is even before we get to box office impact of Fielder (though it should be noted that Fielder will help make the Nationals make a better case for tripling their TV deal and will increase MASN profits). As stated above the Nationals have sold just 7.9 million tickets the last 4 years, and have been under the 2 million ticket plateau since their opening season in Nats Park. Since that year, they haven’t been able to sell to even 60% capacity of their stadium (and remember that doesn’t take into account the fans that don’t show up, which drives down secondary sales like concessions). While more fan hype in general, and the likely debut of Bryce Harper, should draw the Nationals back up over 2 million fans this season, Fielder has a chance to do something that isn’t even in the Nationals wildest dreams; 3 million fans. While it seems ‘pie in the sky’ it probably shouldn’t be. The Nationals are in a very large market, made up of some of the wealthiest counties in this country. They have a huge base, made up of people who can afford it. The only thing they are lacking is the product on the field.

If the Nationals being a 84-86 win team are expected to draw in the low 2 million’s, is it that hard to imagine that the addition of a marquee talent, and say a 90-95 win total would bring them close to 3 million fans? In addition to the hype surrounding Fielder (and Harper) the Nationals should be right in the thick of the playoff hunt all year, and could make the Nationals the hottest ticket in town. In addition to the say $25-30 million in additional ticket revenue (again erring on the side of caution), the Nationals secondary sales would go up dramatically as well (not only would their be a ‘million more customers’, but plenty of those no-show tickets from years past would now actually attend the games). The addition of Fielder and the great audience he brings helps in another way as well, sponsorships.

While it is unclear just how much increase the Nationals could expect in sponsorship dollars, but it could be dramatic. While market size, regional income, and number of potential advertisers all factor into the size of the contracts (all things that are well in Washington’s favor), the star player effect, and audience size are both key components. By adding Fielder and fans both in the stadium and on TV, the Nationals can expect a significant increase in sponsorship dollars. Finally, Washington has yet to sell the naming rights to Nationals Park, which given their lack of success and a down economy it made sense to wait. But now, with a larger audience and a team that would look to be a perennial playoff contender, the Nationals could cash in and bring a significant naming rights contract.

All told when you ‘follow the money’ it is pretty clear that the Nationals won’t have any issues in affording Fielder and maintaining their current lineup, even without an increase at the box office. Now though is the time to strike for Washington, and they can lock up a young talent for the next 8-10 years, who can put this franchise on the map.

First I want to preface this by saying I have no problem with a G.M. being cagey, or stretching the truth in his public statements about available free agents or strategies. If it potentially helps negotiations and confuses some of his opponents, then he is just doing his job. That being said I think Nationals G.M. Mike Rizzo needs to work some on his deception techniques, because I’m not buying it for a minute.

Two quotes by Mike Rizzo from a recent radio interview that are getting some traction are:

We see the 2013 free agent class at center field is much stronger than it is for the 2012 season.  With that in mind we know Jayson [Werth] can handle the center field position.  It’s not a perfect world for us.  He’s a good defender out there and is ready, willing, and able to take on the responsibility to play center field.  We recognize that we need a true gliding, defensive, rangy center fielder out there in a perfect world. As far as the 2012 season we’re not going to make a kneejerk reaction and lock ourselves into anything long-term if it doesn’t make sense for us.

and;

Adam LaRoche is under contract for us, we’re paying him a lot of money to play first base for us next year.  We feel that he’s going to have a bounceback season.  We just want him to have his career norms: .265, 25, 85-100 RBIs and play great defense.  We feel that his shoulder is rehabbed, he’s 100%, and talking to him just recently he feels great and he’s ready to contribute to us in 2012.  As far as, are we going to dabble our toe in that water?  Those are decisions that we make early on in the process and we’ve more or less decided that Adam is going to be our first baseman unless something extraordinary, out of the ordinary happened, that’s how we’re going to go to Spring Training.

Now let’s breakdown these two quotes and what Nationals fans should take out of them:

First, as for the center field issue:

Rizzo obviously identifies the type of center fielder he needs. And while waiting till 2013 to grab a center  is plausible, I wouldn’t say it is necessarily likely, and the idea of Jayson Werth as an every day center fielder is something that shouldn’t be entertained at all. Now the Nationals could wait till next year’s free agent class, but investing big money long term isn’t a good idea given some of the young prospects the Nats have in center field. Brian Goodwin, Michael Taylor and Eury Perez all project to be potential starting center fielders, and could be ready in 2-4 years (probably the most likely scenario would be 3 years). The Nationals would be better served bringing in a short term decent option than trying to wait for next year and overpaying out of desperation. Most of the big names next year will want 5 years +, and given that the Nationals could be flush with prospects within two years (by that point), it doesn’t make much sense.

The second part of the issue is using Jayson Werth as your one year stopgap. Now I do think Werth is a good defensive corner outfielder, but when it comes to center  field he is average at best. While Werth has good jumps and decent range (for RF) his biggest asset in the field is his strong arm. While that will of course play in center as well, his lack of range will be more exposed. And considering Michael Morse is set to play LF, having a CF with limited range is problematic. His playing CF also represents a logistical problem for the Nationals, as it would all-but force uber-prospect Bryce Harper to be on the opening day roster. While some fans might like that idea, it isn’t in the best long term interest of the organization, and it could even have negative affects on Harper as well. If you bring him up before he is ready and he struggles you could set his development back a year or more. Werth could maybe pass as a center fielder for a few weeks, but a season-long experiment is simply not a good idea for the Nationals.

As for the first base situation:

Yes Adam LaRoche isn’t making league minimum, but he is only making $8 million next year (with a $1 million opt out payment for 2013), which isn’t high at all for guys who have reached free agency. Even at the Nationals current payroll (which has plenty of room to grow) LaRoche only accounts for about 11%. And since LaRoche is only under contract for one more year, he’d be considered a very trade-able asset to a number of teams looking for a short term first base fix. Now given that he is coming off an injury the Nationals would have to contribute some money and couldn’t expect much in return, but they should be able to recoup 60-80% of the $9 million still owed to him.

As for Rizzo’s quote of ‘unless something extraordinary, out of the ordinary happened…’, that to me is the very definition of signing Prince Fielder. Fielder is probably the best combination of age and production among first baseman, and would be an ‘out of the ordinary’ addition to the Nationals.

Now I wondered if there was some way to solve both of these problems (short term CF solution, and what to do with LaRoche), and the solution came to me after reading Buster Olney’s column where he opines Cubs CF Marlon Byrd as a smart short term target for the Nationals. Now at first I dismissed the idea of Byrd, as I preferred the Nationals to take a shot at a young guy who is blocked on another team, but still has decent upside. The more I thought of it though, the more Byrd for LaRoche plus cash could work.

The Cubs are now well stocked in the outfield department, and probably wouldn’t mind moving Byrd and his $6.5 million salary. While Byrd has been a good player for the Cubs these last two years, he’s in the final year of his deal, he’s 34, and Chicago has younger options there. Now one might ask why the Cubs would want LaRoche, but I could see it as a viable option. The Cubs need a first baseman, and going for a name on the free agent market doesn’t seem to make much sense. LaRoche could be a nice solid, first base option for a year as the Cubs look to rebuild. By swapping Byrd’s salary for LaRoche’s (and getting a $1 million or two from the Nats) the Cubs would essentially be paying fairly little for their 1B. Also, while it was a brief stint, Cub’s President Theo Epstein did acquire LaRoche a few years back near the trade deadline, so there is some familiarity.

For the Nationals they get at least a one year CF fix, that should be an upgrade both offensively and defensively. Byrd isn’t the fastest guy (not by a long shot), but he covers a lot of ground out there, and could help mitigate some of the negative defensive value of Morse. Byrd’s bat has fluctuated in recent years, but it will likely be an improvement over the CF production last year. It wouldn’t be a major trade in terms of the players involved, but could have a lasting impact on the Nationals if executed properly.