Planetary Nats Blog

Here are some short notes on the latest Nats News:

The Trade – I think there is some danger in calling this “The Trade”. Perhaps I will reserve !!!THE TRADE!!! for the real one (that hasn’t happened yet). Olsen and WIllingham for Bonifacio and two minor leaguers? This is a very good trade. Even if Smolinski and P. J. Dean turn out to be stars, I think it is safe to say that nobody would have predicted that today. The worst case scenario is that Olsen replaces Odalis Perez (OK, the real worst-case scenario is that everyone ends up on the DL, but lets forget that one for the moment). Olsen is probably better than that… and certainly younger. As for Willingham, who doesn’t need a disciplined bat with pop? The biggest problem with Willingham is where to put him. I think the Nats are committed to Milledge and Dukes, I think they’re not ready to give up on Kearns (neither am I, though I think ultimately he’s the kind of hitter that needs to be surrounded with good hitters to be effective), and then there’s Wily Mo Pena. I think even a healthy Pena ends up riding the pine. As Bowden said… competition.

One more thing… What is it about the Marlins that have made them Nats killers? Perhaps someone can ask Willingham and Olsen.

New Unis - I’ve always been partial to red. So, the red script curly-W-based ‘Washington’ on the road greys works great for me. Not sure about the alternate blues. Honestly, I’d rather see the Nats play in the Homestead Greys unis for those five or six games a year. In fact, save the alternate blues for the annual July 4th afternoon game. That’s it. (That’s right, the July 4th home game should be an annual tradition. Presidential opener, too.)

More on Unis – Well, not really unis, but logos. I am an expat Washingtonian, and I grew up with the Senators. I had a red curly W cap as a kid (I thought it stood for ‘Wigi’). But I loved that logo… and I still do love that logo – though I have been told that there are subtle differences between the Senators “W” and the Nats “W”.

What I haven’t liked, and continue not to like, is the “Nationals” logo, with the block letters over the baseball. My reasoning is that from a marketing standpoint, it defeats the purpose of having a logo in the first place.

The point of having a logo is that it is a symbol that represents the brand, without having to spell out the name of the brand itself. Almost every sports team has a logo which completely stands alone, without words that represents the team, and those who are sensitive to that industry universally recognize the logo and the associated meaning. You can even extend that beyond sports – think of Nike’s swoop, McDonald’s arches, AT&T’s globe – even in cases where the logo has words in it, the logo itself is recognizeable without having to read the words. Think 7-Eleven.

The “Nationals” logo, in 2005, served a purpose. Most baseball fans thought that the Expos were invisible in the first place, and moving them to Washington hardly made them more visible. Having the word “Nationals” in the logo helped to establish the brand. But here we are, five seasons later. The team surely hasn’t distingushed itself on the field to the point where the casual baseball fan knows immediately who the Nats are… but certainly, nobody (except play-by-play guys) thinks the Nats are the Expos, and would somehow look at a Curly W and think ‘Montreal’.

When the Lerners took over the Nats, they said that there would be more Curly W’s. That’s good. Now what we need are less of the other logo.

I am definitely a ‘Planista’. The thing that I like most about ”The Plan” is that it is an organizational philosophy that has a clear goal – winning the World Series. Certainly there are critics, among whom are those that think that the Nationals ownership is ‘cheap’, but I believe that the low payrolls are more an artifact of their approach to personnel rather than a goal in and of itself.

Now that we’re between a third and half way through the season, it appears pretty plain that my “irrational exuberance” (and that of a lot of other people) is somewhat misplaced, and at this point, if the Nats could garner 74 wins (to match last season’s record) it would be quite an accomplishment. So now that our expectations are now more in line with reality, I am curious to know what people think would be realistic goals for the Nats this year.

Here are some of mine:

• Resign Cristian Guzman. If you could get him for three years, I would do it.
• Find out if Dukes and Milledge are long-term pieces. I think they are, but I could use another 90 games to convince me.
• Find your rotation of the future. The Nats have probably ten starting pitchers that are credible candidates. Who are your five?
• Sign your draft picks.

If you do those things, you’re left with long term holes at first and second base, and you have Marrero as a possible first baseman. Perhaps now you’re at the spot where you make the blockbuster trade for a second baseman, or sign a free agent.

So, what are your goals?

Just a quick note – What do the Nats and I have in common? We’re both headed for Seattle for the weekend.

I’ll be taking in the series with the Mariners, and I’ll bring a camera and post my thoughts from the Great Pacific Northwest – which is what I normally do, anyway, but at least this time, I’ll actually be at the game.

For the superstitious among you, the Nats play much better when I wear my red Nats stuff, so I am bringing all of my red Nats apparel, and leaving the blue at home. Also, the Nats are 3-0 this season when I am in attendance. Last year they were 0-7.