It’s well known that the Nationals have been trying to trade Jonathan Papelbon and Drew Storen this offseason. The club found a match for Storen with the Blue Jays on Friday, acquiring outfielder Ben Revere in return, but where does this leave Papelbon?
Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo was asked that question in a conference call this afternoon. While he didn’t dismiss the possibility of a trade, he indicated that they are planning on having Papelbon in their bullpen in 2016.
Here’s the quote from Chase Hughes of CSNWashington.com:
“We make baseball trades. If there’s a baseball trade out there, then we’ll make it. We see Papelbon as being one of our late-inning relievers. He’s been very effective at it his entire career, including last year except for the last portion of the season. This guy is a quality reliever, quality closer. He’s been in the biggest stage that you can be in. He pitched the last out of a World Series game and has a World Series ring. He knows how to win. He brings a swagger to the bullpen and he’s a guy that we’re going to rely on to pitch late and leverage innings.”
It’s not like Rizzo is going to say bad things about someone he’s trying to move, but trading Papelbon has always been easier said than done. In addition to his reputation, he’s owed $11 million in 2016 and has a 17-team no-trade list.
There’s also the question of what the Nationals would do with the back-end of their bullpen if they trade Papelbon. With Storen gone, the internal options include the likes of Felipe Rivero, Shawn Kelley, Blake Treinen, Trevor Gott, Yusmeiro Petit, and Oliver Perez. There aren’t many proven options remaining in free agency outside of Tyler Clippard or Antonio Bastardo, so they might just be forced to embrace the awkwardness and keep Papelbon around.
While Papelbon’s 2015 ended in ugly fashion after choking teammate Bryce Harper, the 35-year-old had a 2.13 ERA and 56/12 K/BB ratio over 63 1/3 innings.
Ben Schulman wrote a long, interesting article about stadium architecture over at The Hardball Times today. He asks us to consider the old concrete donut stadiums — multipurpose parks like Three Rivers and The Vet — and to think about what we have gained by their near-extinction. And what we’ve lost.
The article starts out with what I feared would be too much misplaced nostalgia for the Brutalist, functional places that no longer exist outside of Oakland, with the now de rigueur references to astroturf and weird 1970s baseball. It backs away from that early on, though, and presents what I feel is a thoughtful look at the various approaches to building a ballpark. Stadium geeks and architecture geeks will find much to love here.
From a personal perspective, I have a love/hate relationship with newer parks. I spent a good deal of time going to places like Riverfront Stadium when I was a kid and do not miss them at all. But I also think there have been a lot of missteps in the last 25 years or so too.
Most new parks are pleasant and comfortable places to take in a ballgame, but so many of them are totally unimaginative and uninspiring from an architectural point of view. I am not fan of nostalgia, and so many of them — particularly the ones built in the 90s — were fueled by a great deal of misguided retro-ism that looks backwards. I suspect this is the case because either (a) no one had the guts or vision to look forward; and/or (b) they felt they could make easier bucks by catering to people who think everything went to hell once Eisenhower left office than by doing something bold. To be fair, there are examples of newer parks that eschew the faux old-timey vibe to greater degrees — Target Field in Minneapolis and Marlins Park in Miami come to mind — and I tend to prefer those to more backward-looking places. Again, architecturally speaking.
I think the sweet spot — and the linked article touches on this a bit — are ballparks which think bigger than the bland and dreary functionalism of the 1960s and 70s but which eschew derivative, traditionalist approaches. Parks which were built with then-modern sensibilities and saw their vision through without compromise. Dodger Stadium is a fine, modernist example of this. So too is Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, about which I wrote a few years ago. They had a great opportunity to do this in Chicago in the late 80s but muffed it. I think Marlins Park could fall into that category if (a) there is ever anything approaching memorable baseball there; and (b) if they stop being afraid of its bold aspects and stop trying to turn it into a vanilla monument to its vanilla owner. The common denominator, I suppose, is that these parks weren’t and aren’t trying to cater to the childhoods of local fans.
Anyway, good read on a slow news day.