D.C. GM Mike Rizzo admitted this week, in an MLB Network Radio interview, that though they've considered trades and explored the market for center fielders this winter, the Washington Nationals recognize that, ".. the 2013 free agent class at center field is much stronger than it is for the 2012 season," so the winter of 2011/12 might not be the time to find what they're after. The Nats believe they can put Jayson Werth in center if they have to, which would allow Washington to try for the center fielder/leadoff man next winter or allow them to look at a larger field of candidates from among the available corner outfielders this winter.
Of course, there is one center field option still out there in soon-to-be free agent outfielder Yoenis Cespedes. In writing about the pursuit of Prince Fielder and examining the pros and cons of such an investment, Washington Post writer Thomas Boswell, in an article entitled, "Prince Fielder’s price is not right for Nationals right now", suggested that the Nats could wait to sign the center fielder they want in 2013 or for less than it would cost to sign the free agent first baseman, "...not only finish the [Ryan] Zimmerman extension far past ’13, but, with room to spare, also sign Cuban center fielder Yoenis Cespedes."

There's been very little public discussion about the Face of the Nats' franchise's extension. He's signed through 2013. Beyond that? Rizzo talked about Cespedes this past week though in an interview with ESPN980's Thom Loverro and Kevin Sheehan, telling the Sports Fix hosts the Nats had scouted the 26-year-old Cuban slugger extensively, but questions remained.
"Can he stay in CF with that big, physical frame of his?" Rizzo asked rhetorically, "That's one question. You always have the question of, 'What level of play do you see him play in those international tournaments?' and, 'Can he handle the everyday grind of a major league season?'" With the kind of contract being discussed, Rizzo said, "Those are all questions that you need to feel very, very comfortable with and if you're not, this is somebody you should not walk away from, [but] run away from."
Boston Globe writer Nick Cafardo wrote much the same in his weekly Sunday "Baseball Notes" column today, noting that even though some in baseball were "drooling" over the prospect of signing the HR-hitting Cuban outfielder, "... there are an awful lot of scouts and evaluators who don’t want to stake their reputation on a $50 million outlay for the center fielder, who is hard to evaluate based on the competition he has faced." Mr. Cafardo writes that rather than spend the rumored $50-$60 million on Cespedes, "Some scouts appear more comfortable with Jorge Soler, who would come at a cheaper price (around $20 million) and with lower expectations."
Washington Post writer Adam Kilgore, among others, has written about the Nats' interest in Soler, a 19-year-old Cuban defector who's a lot more of a project than the 26-year-old Cespedes. And if they can't find an outfielder that fits their needs on the international free agent market, as Rizzo reminded everyone last week, there's always that other 19-year-old kid, Bryce Harper already in the system.
Rizzo also reminded everyone in an MLB Network Radio interview last week that though the Nats had at least considered the possibility of adding a big free agent bat at first, they had, "...more or less decided that Adam [LaRoche] 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." As the Boston Globe's Mr. Cafardo noted again, however, the rumors of Washington's interest in Fielder have continued for some time. "Last spring, we wrote about Fielder and Washington," Mr. Cafardo wrote Sunday, "and there were a lot of denials over the months that followed. Now we’re back to Washington being in the lead for him."
The reports by Baltimore Sun writer Dan Connolly this weekend that the Baltimore/Washington area was one of the stops on Fielder and agent Scott Boras' recent tour of MLB cities only led to more speculation about whether or not the Nationals are quietly pursuing the 5'11'', 275lb free agent first baseman. ESPN.com's Buster Olney too, wrote just after Christmas that, "There is a broad assumption among a lot of baseball executives that eventually, Prince Fielder's most attractive offer will come from the Nationals," and if they were to add Fielder, Mr. Olney wrote this morning in an article entitled, "Rays top New Year's Power Rankings", he believes, "... there would immediately be a shift in the baseball landscape."
With Ryan Zimmerman, Jayson Werth, Michael Morse, Wilson Ramos, Danny Espinosa, Ian Desmond and eventually Bryce Harper already in the organization, they're close to the Top 10 in the Power Rankings, but Mr. Olney wrote that, "The Nationals... would jump into the top 10 if they signed Fielder." Mr. Olney's recently ranked the Nationals as having the 8th Best Rotation in baseball after acquiring Gio Gonzalez to go along with Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann. The Nationals were also 8th overall on Mr. Olney's list of "MLB's Top 10 bullpens", and 9th overall on his list of the Top 10 infields.
All around baseball, scouts and writers are impressed with what Rizzo's front office has been able to build thus far in the nation's capital. What Rizzo and co. are able to add over the next month or two could determine if the future is now for the Nationals or still a year away...
0 recs | 49 comments
Extension for Tyler Clippard?
Saw some speculation about Tyler Clippard being an extension candidate at: MLB TR
HG_VA - January 1, 2012
Great setup guy AND he reads FB?
Extend him for life!
Tvm950 - January 1, 2012
So Boswell screams that the Lerners are being cheap and then says fielder is too expensive?
So confused
The Herndon Kid - January 1, 2012 via mobile
My thoughts exactly. I rarely read Boswell, and Ladson is soon to be on that list as well. Both are worse than blogger fans who have no inside information at all. I swear….I read better comments here in the comments section, than what I read by Boswell and Ladson.
sullyzz - January 1, 2012
He's a pundit. A baseball pundit, but a pundit nonetheless
Consistency is not a noted hallmark of pundits.
d_c_guy - January 1, 2012
Agreed on all accounts…..However, the term pundit, by definition, seems to be too much of a compliment.
sullyzz - January 2, 2012
I don't know where to start,
is it with Patrick’s sloppy characterization of Boswell’s writing on this matter, or Herndon Kid’s indignation over a misreading of Boswell’s comments, or Sullyzz’s ludicrous association of the writing of Ladson and Boswell?
PerryMason - January 1, 2012
Why not start with the first?
I’d like to know how I’ve sloppily mischaracterized what is in that article?
Patrick Reddington - January 1, 2012 via mobile
I should have prefaced my previous statement with "in all due respect"
That and sorry for the slow response (I blame it on pain meds and hunt and peck typing on iPad).
You seem to indicate that Boswell would be opposed the signing Fielder under any circumstances. I reject that statement. (I think Boswell is saying that signing Fielder for a long term contract (7-10 years @ fill in the blank dollars per year) doesn’t make sense, which is much different then how I read your characterization of his opinion). From there go directly to saying that Boswell recommends that, in lieu of signing Fielder, they spend that (hypothetical amount of) money elsewhere (i.e. on Zimmererman or Cepedes).
PerryMason - January 1, 2012
I may have simplified too much in an attempt to fit that in to one paragraph, I agree.
Thanks. Didn’t mean for it to sound as challenging as it does upon rereading, I just wondered what I’d written that misrepresented what he’d said. His main argument was that at the right price, maybe, but the Nats don’t necessarily need to add Fielder and it could cause problems in terms of future roster flexibility, etc. Will attempt to fix wording in a little so that it more accurately conveys his points. thanks.
Patrick Reddington - January 1, 2012
My initial reaction had nothing to do with what you wrote, but was more of a response to HK and Sully… But than I re-read your piece and I could sorta understand their reaction, so I didn’t feel like I could object to their sentiments without pointing a finger at you too..In any case I sympathize with the inherent problems of daily reporting on the Nats I might add that I think part of the problem is that the Post’s headline, “Prince Is Not Right For The Nats”, which Boswell has nothing to do with, serves as a lightning rod and also misrepresents his position.
PerryMason - January 1, 2012
I would say "snarky annoyance" rather than indignation.
Truthfully I was more disgusted with Boswell’s piece calling the Lerners cheap. He blasted them for not making stupid signings that would not have benefitted the club, in particular 4 years for Buerhle and bidding on the soon to be $100m Yu Darvish.
I think Boswell can sometimes be good, but I thought that piece was lazy and ill informed.
The Herndon Kid - January 2, 2012 via mobile
Where and when did Boswell blast the Lerner’s for being cheap for not signing Burley for 4 years and not signing Yu Darvish for +100 million? My recollection is that he wrote or implied just the opposite.
PerryMason - January 2, 2012
Here's the article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/nationals-have-more-cash-coming-in-but-refuse-to-spend-it/2011/12/21/gIQAkDUIAP_story.html
The Herndon Kid - January 2, 2012 via mobile
In that piece he was hard on the Learners, no doubt about it, but I don’t see anything where he criticizes them for a failure to match the Buerhle or Darvish deals in particular.
I’ve said it before, it seems to me that he was merely stating a pretty commonly held belief concerning the way the Learners do business.
PerryMason - January 2, 2012
I would say those comments are implicit in paragraphs like this
How can you not sign them unless you meet or exceed what the market paid for them?
The Herndon Kid - January 2, 2012
Yeah I read that piece and just came away shaking my head
I’m a steady fan of Boswell’s and have been for decades, but to me, that piece on the Lerners was strident, childish, and completely out of character. Ax me Boswell just tossed in a clunker, that’s all – happens to the best of us, and happens to the rest of us.
But to say he stinks? Nah, that’s going a bit too far. Boswell is an HOF sportswriter, and he’s the best this town has seen since Shirley Povich and Bob Addie.
Whupass - January 2, 2012
Hey, he's a columnist - He writes about what's on his mind two or three times a week.
The fact that he produced a baseball piece in Football season is stunning to me, at least. Yes, it was a somewhat childish piece playing to the ‘Lerners are cheap’ crowd, but it got people talking, and that’s the bottom line for a columnist.
Any comparison between Boswell & Ladson to me is like comparing bread & chewing gum; You can consume both of them, but only one will sustain you.
BinM - January 2, 2012
The best this town has seen? I may be frum da south, but Dem’ Der be strooooong words there pilgram. I dun seen too many of’um frum’em, if ya ask me. I done guess ya’ll gone a’hoootin crazy. I jus don’t like dat fella too much.
sullyzz - January 3, 2012
As for comedy...
don’t quit your day job.
But a more substantive response is always welcome – assuming you can do better than, “He stinks.” Then again, if I just rub you the wrong way, simply ignore me. I can stand it.
Whupass - January 3, 2012
You don’t rub me the wrong way….I was simply poking fun at you in friendly way…..you are alright with me and I enjoy your comments; however, “to me” Bos stinks, period. I don’t like his writing, I don’t like his articles…..that is “my” opinion whether you and Perry like it or not. I have never read anything he writes about the Burgundy and Gold, because I do not like the Burgundy and Gold….so maybe he is a classic HOF columnist regarding the NFL team. But I have read many articles by him regarding the Nats that were seriously terrible, and have made me consider him a closet O’s fan.
sullyzz - January 4, 2012
My ludicrous association? Both writers simply stink…..how about that as an association?
sullyzz - January 2, 2012
By ’both writers" I mean Ladson and Boswell.
sullyzz - January 2, 2012
I can understand that you may disagree with Boswell, even most of the time, I really can, but to say that Boswell (someone who for over 40 years has written a column in one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world, and has written numerous well received books on baseball, both of which has eared him access to the most important players and “players” in the game and who the likes of Bill Ladson , can only dream about) “simply stinks” as a writer is, in my opinion, simply a ridiculous statement.
PerryMason - January 2, 2012
Your opinion of him is obviously pretty high…..mine not so much. I am entitled to my opinion of Boswell, and it is quite negative. Just because you do not agree, does not mean that mine is ridiculous. I rarely read his articles because, to me, his opinions are no better and no higher in quality than a fan on a blog site. I’d much rather read Zuckerman and some of the others….at least they make sense “most” of the time.
sullyzz - January 2, 2012
I did not say Sully that because you disagree with Boswell’s opinion your stance is ridiculous, I took issue with your position that he “stinks as a writer” and your assertation that he’s in the same league with Bill Ladson. That is what I find to border on the ridiculous.
There are plenty of columnist that I disagree with – l would guess that it’s about 50% of them – but that does not mean that they all stink as writers, though there are some clearly do. If you believe that to be so in the case of Thomas Boswell that’s fine, to each his own, but I would add that in a town where sports media spends 12 months a year 24/7 ad nauseum debating how many Redskins can dance on the head of a pin, it seems to me to be that your disdain for a writer who has shown himself to be such a major promoter of baseball in general and the Nats in particular is misplaced.
PerryMason - January 2, 2012
To each his own. I not only disagree with most of his opinions of the Nationals, which seems more negative than positive, but I do not enjoy his writing either.
sullyzz - January 2, 2012
Sully
I’m a fan of the Nats just like you and for that reason I’d like to know where you find better and more objective insight/info regarding the Nats then you can read within this chat about Washington sports in general and what is it here that you fid to be so objectionable.
http://live.washingtonpost.com/ask-boswell-010312.html
This is an example of what Ihave foundnover the years to be a typical Boswell commentary on the state our favorite team, the Nats.
Please advise.
PerryMason - January 4, 2012
I must offer you at least a partial mea culpa
we’ve had our back-and-forths on the merits/demerits of Boswell. I’m still not a particular fan of his columns, but one or two exceptions (Hanley [spit] moving should be compared not to the standard for 3B, but to who played there for the Marlins in 2010), I was impressed with his responses in the chat.
jbg2772 - January 4, 2012
There is no roster flexibility........
problem with Fielder and a 5 year contract………….Fielder will be better then Morse or Harper for the next 5 years……………..
artistfork - January 1, 2012
It is easily arguable that Fielder would be more of a limit to roster flexibility.
It’s kind of a no brainer that Fielder will be better than Morse.
As far as Harper goes, there is resin to believe that you are wrong. I for one wouldn’t trade Harper for Fielder. Would you?
PerryMason - January 1, 2012
I'd say it's 2 years at most that Fielder is guaranteed to be better than Harper.
Doncosmic - January 2, 2012
Trade...........
You would’nt trade Fielder for Harper either………..
artistfork - January 2, 2012
Most teams absolutely would in a second.
Doncosmic - January 2, 2012
"Kind of a no brainer that Fielder will be better than Morse."
I respectfully take issue with that statement.
My biggest problem with that statement is that Morse’s production over the next few years is really quite unknowable. He’s really only got ONE year against which his future production can be judged – last year. Nothing he did before counts, IMO, but time will tell. Whether last year was “aberrational” Michael Morse,the “new” Michael Morse, or heck, even “not the best Morse you’ve seen yet” Michael Morse, is unpredictable.
But looking at his production last year, MM’s 2011 was better than PF’s 2010. I’ll let you look at all the numbers and decide which ones are the most important, but the overall judgment should be convincing when comparing the two. And MM’s WAR (which seems quite the relied-upon statistic in these parts!) of 3.0 beats PF’s in three of the past six years.
Don’t get me wrong – I salivate when considering a lineup what would include Fielder (as well as Morse!). But I don’t see it as a “no brainer” in any way.
ricksnats - January 3, 2012
perhaps “no brainer” was a poor choice of words, because I don’t totally disagree with what you say… My point was more along he line of “if I had to bet the ranch” without hesitation I would bet that Fielder will be more productive and this is simply because there is no denying that his numbers to date have been better, he’s done it for a longer period of time and he’s younger. That being said, I think Morse is for real and it wouldnt surprise me at all if for the next couple of years his numbers and Fielders are close… which, if the Nats are able to sign Fielder to a “reasonable” contract is pretty exciting to think about.
PerryMason - January 3, 2012
+reasonable!!!
Absolutely agree on Fielder’s overall numbers and history (although I’d take Morse’s 29 y.o. frame over Fielder’s at 27 any day).
ricksnats - January 3, 2012
If they don't love any options till next year at CF
At least I would hope they would grab a vet on a 1 year deal. I still think Crisp is an okay option for that scenario.
Alex35332 - January 2, 2012
M2
Whupass - January 2, 2012
Crisp reportedly doesn't want to leave the West Coast,
and if Harper doesn’t make the 25-man out of Viera, an OF with Morse & Werth in the corners and a two-man mash-up of Bernadina/Cameron/Carroll/Brown batting 8th might not kill our chances. Of course, if young Oppo-Boppo makes the team, then they likely go with Morse/Werth/Harper, with Bernadina as the #4OF.
That gives guys like Moore [1B], Perez[ CF], Brown [CF], and even Hood [LF], Rendon [??] & Goodwin [CF] a year to prove their respective values in the minors as possible promotions in 2013. It isn’t always about FA’s, dont’cha know.
BinM - January 2, 2012
Coco Crisp to sign soon
Coco Crisp Decides Where To Sign
It don’t say where,but he wants to play for a contender
HG_VA - January 2, 2012
One View
-Cespedes is more hype than reality. His price would have to come way down to be attractive.
-I agree with Boz, the number of years for Fielder does not justify pursuing him. The Nats would give up a first round pick, take high risk in the out years (see A-Rod), lose defense in the infield, affect the ability of the Nats to extend other players coming due and reduce their ability to bid on other free agents in coming years. Final offer to Boras: three years, $80m. If they want more than that, take a pass.
JamesFan - January 2, 2012
With the way draft pick signing is with the new CBA...
it seems like loosing a 1st round pick may not be as detrimental as before since a team could pay over slot later and without destroying the percentage paid to draftees. I could be looking at it completely wrong, though.
jimmylauderdale - January 2, 2012
No I don't think so
I think that if we signed Fielder we would give up our 16th slot pick and give up our signing cap as well to the Brewers
Hotpockets - January 2, 2012
reply fail
I meant to reply to Jimmy
Hotpockets - January 2, 2012
Nope
we give up our 2nd round pick
jeff550 - January 2, 2012
how do you figure?
Our 1st round pick is unprotected. Fielder’s a type A and we haven’t signed anyone else. I know that the rules changed, but not for this year. The only changes were regarding relief pitchers…
So I’m pretty sure we lose our first round pick
Hotpockets - January 2, 2012
New CBA rules
HaudricourtTom
@TSH255 If signing team is in lower half, Brewers would get that team’s 2nd round pick as well as supplemental 1st rounder.
jeff550 - January 3, 2012
But the Nats are not in the lower half
(We had these discussions at the end of the regular season.) They’re ranked 15th out of 30, so sign Fielder = Brewers get Washington’s first-rounder.
jbg2772 - January 3, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Federal Baseball to post a comment.