Stephen Strasburg Book Excerpt

Below is an excerpt from my new book, Paul Lebowitz’s 2012 Baseball Guide.

This section is about Nationals’ star Stephen Strasburg.

—

Stephen Strasburg is considered the “ace” of the Nats staff, but it’s impossible to be an ace if a pitcher can’t be expected to throw at least 200 innings. In 2011, in his return from Tommy John surgery, Strasburg threw 44 innings.

This season, his limit won’t be any higher than 150-160 innings.

I’m not getting into my usual rant about the idiotic “Verducci Effect” and the other excuses (not reasons, excuses) for random limitations placed on each and every pitcher that comes along in a paranoid attempt to keep them from getting hurt and shield the organization from the inevitable criticism that would come from such an eventuality.

But here’s a flash: the Nats had Strasburg on a limit when he first got to the big leagues and he got hurt anyway.

They’re controlling every aspect of Strasburg’s career like a monolithic Marv Marinovich and protecting him to the point of sticking him in a plastic bubble.

It’s not the way to develop. They have this young man in a straitjacket and it’s going to hinder him as a person and as a pitcher.

Davey Johnson will adhere to the edicts, but he was never one to baby his pitchers and would probably like to loosen up the restrictions.

It’s not going to happen.

On the mound, in his 24 big league innings, Strasburg looked even better than he did as a rookie. He struck out 24 hitters and walked only 2! He allowed 15 hits and no homers. His fastball reached the upper 90s, he showed his great curve and changeup.

Strasburg could contend for the Cy Young Award this season and if they took off the handcuffs, the Nats would be title contenders immediately.

But they won’t.

—

Click here for a full sample of team predictions/projections. My book is now available on Kindle,Smashwords and Lulu with other outlets on the way.

Click on the above links to purchase a copy.

From The Department Of: "What's The Big Deal?"

• The Nats prospect/age scandal:

I'm not sure why this is such an issue. In case anyone missed it, there's a conniption fit going on because a prospect who said his name was Esmailyn Gonzalez and claimed to be 16-years-old when the Washington Nationals signed him to a $1.4 million contract three years ago, is actually Carlos David Alvarez Lugo and was 19 when he was signed.
Okay, so? What's the big deal?
When signing players from countries that are dirt poor and have slipshod systems of keeping records, how is anyone supposed to know how old a player is? Years ago there were questions about the ages of players like Luis Tiant; and it's now coming out that established players such as Miguel Tejada lied about their ages. So? There's no way for anyone to really know how old a player is; the only thing a scout or interested team can truly know is what the player tells them and by examining the documents they can get their hands on; and what if they are older than they say they are? Are the Athletics going to discount all the numbers and the MVP award Tejada won when he was their shortstop? Are the Indians, Red Sox and Yankees going to strike Tiant's numbers when he pitched for them because he may have been two, three or five years older than they thought?
The age thing is only a scouting protective device anyway; they might've known that the guy was probably not who he said he was and wasn't the age he said he was, but what's the difference if he can play? A scout signing a 16-year-old----good; a scout signing a 19-year-old----bad. This Lugo or Gonzalez or whatever his name is looks like he can play a bit based on his numbers; so what if he's a couple years older that they thought? The guy wanted to play baseball professionally; apparently has some ability; and he took the steps to make it a reality. Why is it that everyone's flipping out about this when more damage was done to the game's reputation by the wink, nod and blissfully intentional ignorance that baseball itself utilized in inflicting the damage of the PED scandals? This is a non-story.

• Jim Bowden as Fredo Corleone:

The list of reasons for the Nationals to replace GM Jim Bowden are vast, but it's starting to look like he's a wannabe Don King, and is in reality, Fredo Corleone. There's a new investigation by the FBI about skimming of signing bonuses with Bowden involved----ESPN Story.
I have no idea what Bowden did or didn't do, but when's enough going to be enough with this guy? The Nats farm system is hideous; he's turned the big league roster into a halfway house for wayward youth; he doesn't know what he's doing; and he's not particularly well-liked anyway. It's as if he wants to be a criminal mastermind similar to King, with brilliance and always plausible deniability combined with a logic that is the hallmark of an evil genius, but instead screws everything up like Fredo Corleone and is best kept in the background or dispatched before things get even worse.

• I watched five minutes of the Oscars and remembered specifically why I don't watch it:

I thought that the new administration was clarifying the lines of torture. You'd never know it from the few minutes I spent watching the Oscars.
Without getting into detail, what was the purpose of having those former winners standing on stage as a group and having an ass-kiss fest of the nominees for this year? It was like being dragged across broken glass face first and it didn't want to end. I kept flipping channels and going back and it was still going on!!!! As far as I know, it hasn't ended yet. Does anyone even watch the thing anymore, or do they just wait to see who won? Good grief!!!

A Narrow Escape And A Decision Being Made Easy

• New York 13-Washington 10:
  

Shaun Suisham (try working on that tongue twister Cindy Brady, then

Buddy Hinton won't be able to goof on you because of your lithp) missed a 48-yard field goal as time ran out (wide left) for New York to hold on and win.
All kidding aside, if the season ended today, Aaron Heilman wouldn't be on the active roster for the first round of the playoffs, nor would he deserve to be.

Diamondbacks Acquire Jon Rauch From The Nationals

The Nationals made two contradictory maneuvers today that pretty much make no sense

whatsoever. They traded Jon Rauch to the Diamondbacks for

23-year-old infielder Emilio Bonifacio and they signed shortstop Cristian Guzman to a two-year contract extension. So, is Nationals GM Jim Bowden clearing out some veterans or is he doing as he did last year with Ronnie Belliard and Dmitri Young and signing players like Guzman, whose value will never be higher, to nonsensical contract extensions?
Rauch is something that every single contender wants----a workhorse reliever who can close and is signed to a bargain-basement contract through 2010;

am I alone in waiting to hear what else the Diamondbacks gave up to get him? Bonifacio is young, can run like the wind and has put up some promising numbers in the minors----stats----but did Rauch have to be traded now? A week before the deadline? As teams are still sifting through their needs and haven't gotten desperate due moves made by other contenders?
Rauch has pitched in over 85 games in each of the past two years, is only about to turn 30, throws strikes and doesn't give up many homers; he can close or set-up equally as well, and all Bowden got was a minor league infielder with no power? Bonifacio's numbers appear to bear promise of a very good big league player, but I have to believe that with all the factors surrounding Rauch (contract, durability, performance, salary), there could have been more coming back than just one player.
As for the Guzman contract, no matter what the Nationals are paying him (terms weren't

disclosed), they can't be expecting him (or Belliard; or Young) to be around when and if the Nationals finally become contenders, so what do they need to keep him for? He's hitting .310 and made the All Star team; he's got "once-in-a-while" home run power and he's a pretty good fielder; he could've brought back a prospect, why sign him to an extension? Just like Belliard and Young, there was no reason to sign him to an extension and every reason to trade him; and with the way Belliard and Young have stumbled this year, one would think that Bowden would've learned his lesson, but apparently not.