Skip to content

How much is Dunn worth?

Jul 8, 2010, 3:55 AM EDT


Photo by Mark Zuckerman / NATS INSIDER
Adam Dunn has his eyes on a contract extension with the Nationals.

As the small-but-enthusiastic crowd of 13,762 stood and cheered until Adam Dunn emerged from the dugout to doff his helmet, you couldn't help but think to yourself: Why on earth would the Nationals not want to re-sign this guy right now?

Seriously, how many other players in baseball could do what Dunn did tonight in the Nats' 7-6 win over the Padres? Three home runs. Two of them opposite-field shots. The other a solo blast off a tough left-handed reliever.

That's three homers, five RBI and about 1,200 feet of home runs in less than three hours.

"That's what he can do," Ryan Zimmerman said. "He's one of, if not the best power guys in the game the last five, six years. It's good to have him on your team."

So why does Dunn's name keep cropping up in trade rumors? And why haven't the Nationals quashed any talk of a deal by locking him up right now to a contract extension?

Because, even though Dunn wants to stay and the Nats want to keep him, it's not as simple as it sounds. The problem is that no one can seem to decide just how much Dunn is worth.

On the one hand, you're looking at a guy who has established himself as a guaranteed 40-homer, 100-RBI, 110-walk player every season. He's surpassed or come awfully close to those numbers each of theRead more ยป

  1. Arlington Big Fish - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:08 AM

    Somewhat off-topic: is anyone besides me finding it impossible to get thru to whatever mechanism it takes on the MLB web site to cast an All-Star vote for the Fina Guy?

  2. Doc - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:13 AM

    If the Nats won't/can't commit to Dunn, then they might as well kiss the next few years good-bye! He's equal to Howard in all the ways that count. Championship teams don't trade guys like Dunn, they trade for them, or sign them as free agents. They were going to offer the better fielding Texiera $250 million, for production similar to Dunn's. When both careers are over, don't bet against Dunn having the better power numbers!!

  3. David Lint - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:14 AM

    Who's got the better UZR this year?GG – Albert PujolsGG – Mark TeixeriaGG – Carlos Pena"one dimensional" – Adam Dunn

  4. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:27 AM

    "David LINT"? Are you serious?? Nobody would name a baby THAT. It sounds so, you know, oyvey-ish and bellybuttongarbage-esque.Re-sign Adam Dunn!

  5. Ben Standig - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:28 AM

    You make a compelling case for signing him. I heard Zimmerman on the radio today echo some of those points. The power numbers are impressive. and yet…the lack of defense is hard to ignore, especially since they have so many fielding issues all over the field. It just feels like either he or Willingham is gone and I keep thinking that the OF is the better value. But tough call for sure. Since this team has had squat to cheer about outside of Strasburg and the President's Race, it would be perceived as a step back if he was dealt…Another factor: When the Wizards re-signed Arenas to that large contract, I always thought part of the reason was that not only was he at the time very popular, but the Wiz were soon going to compete with the Ovechkin-playoff Caps and the new baseball team for the non-Redskins discretionary spending amongst the consumer. Now, Ovie and the Caps have hit it big (well, in the reg. season), and the Wiz have new hope in Wall. Strasburg is huge, but dealing Dunn certainly won't help keep any fans around on those other four days.

  6. David Lint - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:32 AM

    I didn't really have a choice for a last name, now did I?It's a German last name… family dropped the 'd' in Lindt when they came over to America in the 1800's.Back on topic… no one is expecting Dunn to get, or ask for Ryan Howard money.Howard's contract is considered one of, if not, the worst contract of all time. It was universally mocked in the baseball world the second the ink dried on it.Sign Dunn to a 3/39 or 4/44 and he'll gladly resign.

  7. Richard - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:57 AM

    David Lint said…"Sign Dunn to a 3/39 or 4/44 and he'll gladly resign."I hope he doesn't resign! But I know what what you're saying. How would one put that unabmiguously? "re-sign"? Maybe Mark could tell us how the professional sports journalists handle this one.

  8. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:48 AM

    He's worth $1 more than what any other team is willing to pay him.

  9. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:52 AM

    >>>Sign Dunn to a 3/39 or 4/44 and he'll gladly resign.<<<He's not going to sign for less than he's making now, on a yearly basis and he's making $12 million now.If you go for 3 years,you start around $40 million. So 4 years would be over $50 million.

  10. David Lint - Jul 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM

    An extra year of security plus a down economy certainly throws your claim of "he's not going to sign for less than he's making now" into jeopardy.Dunn may want more than he's making now, but I doubt he'll get it.

  11. Dan - Jul 8, 2010 at 6:32 AM

    Dunn reminds me of a Tony Perez or a Jim Thome. Not someone who you normally picture as an MVP but darn good nonetheless and an MVP given the right circumstances. And someone who will be sorely missed once he is gone. Much better than T.P., by the way. Please get 'er done!

  12. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 10:33 AM

    Dan,I don't see Dunn as MVP. But if he has enough longevity at 35-40 HR/yr, he is a likely HoF. I'd rather sign the latter than the former.

  13. wayne - Jul 8, 2010 at 10:38 AM

    There is a third option with some risk. Trade Dunn before the deadline then sign him after the season. Of course the risks are 1) Dunn gets hot and carries new team into playoffs and the Nats get priced out of the market and 2) Dunn finds he likes playing "meaningful" baseball in Sept. and stays with new team (WSox, Angels…).RizLernerStan could try to convince Dunn this scenario would help the team with some key acquisitions and he could come back next year to a much improved team. Like I said, lot of risks involved.

  14. joemktg - Jul 8, 2010 at 11:46 AM

    1) Zim made the point: a part of a strong team nucleus is the 3-4-5 spots in the order, and Dunn fills the role perfectly. 2) To add to Anon 2:32AM: He's got 336 HRs so far in his career, and he's got a good shot at attaining 500 in the post-steroid era. That adds historical flavor to this debate.3) Most importantly: the team already has serious long term needs for CF, C, RF and 2B. Why muck around and add 1B to the serious needs list? Focus on the long term solutions to those positions, and leave 1B alone.Lastly, wayne's got a good point. Risky, but a good point nevertheless. And it let's the market establish the value for Dunn.

  15. court - Jul 8, 2010 at 12:20 PM

    One point to make, if we trade Dunn and then resign him, we'll owe a compensatory draft pick to the team we trade him too, thus diminishing the original return. Also, it could piss him off and sour him on the Nats. As wayne alluded to, he could also have a monster post-season (a la Tex) and drive his asking price way up. We have him now and he wants to stay, so since 40-HR guys don't grow on trees, we have to re-sign him. I don't think it's any coincidence that Zim's best two years are coming with Dunn standing in the on-deck circle.

  16. Bowdenball - Jul 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM

    I'm thinking the sticking point HAS to be years. At age 30, Dunn's gotta be looking for 4-5 years, so he can play until he's 35 or so and then, if he's willing and able, DH for a couple final years in the AL before returning. Meanwhile, the Nats front office has to know that Dunn is at his peak now and will likely start to decline soon.I think it's virtually certain that he'll produce enough to be worth somewhere north of $10 million in 2011, and probably 2012. That can't possibly be the sticking point for the Nats, especially considering the appalling lack of young power in the minor league system at the moment. The big question is what he'll produce in 2013 and beyond. The Nats would be right to be concerned about paying a 33-34 year old Dunn $13 million, and Dunn would be right to be concerned about hitting the free agency market at that age. As a fan I'll be delighted if they can get him for three more years, less so if they re-sign him for more than that.

  17. Mark - Jul 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM

    Three comments:1. Team defense is important, everyone traditionally talks about being strong up the middle defensively. The offense is supposed to come from the corners (rf, lf, 1b and 3b). If we hold on to Dunn, we're set at 3 of the 4 corners. 2. If the Nats finish in the bottom half of the standings (W/L), then a test that loses a Free Agent (Dunn), then the Nats would not owe a comp pick. The team losing the player would get a sandwich pick.3. offer Dunn 3 years and 50 million.

  18. Big Cat - Jul 8, 2010 at 12:42 PM

    I agree to sign Dunn. Give the guy what he wants. He has been a joy to watch. Granted, he is terrible at first, but he has put up the numbers and has not once complained about anything. Sign the big galoot already!

  19. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    I wouldnt say Dunn is a gold glover at 1st but he is not terrible. I seem to recall the middle infield & OF'er making more costly errors than Dunner.You will not be able to get equal trade value for Dunn or W'ham. .400 OBP & 30+ HR Leftfielders are hard to come by. Im not sure what the Nats think they could get in a trade these days since teams do not want to deal their top prospects.ZimDunnHammerThat is a pretty tough 3-4-5 right there….not many teams can say they have a 3-4-5 tandem where each is hitting 30+ hr's, hitting over .280 (with high OBP's) and driving in 100 rbi per guy (Hammer & Zim will end up very close to that).Sign them…and build. Our fingercrossers of a FO need to recognize.

  20. Richard - Jul 8, 2010 at 1:21 PM

    I don't know what the people who say Dunn is terrible at 1st base can be looking at. He's been fielding all the grounders and short throws. Boswell criticized his range to his right. Okay. But terrible, very NOT. Maybe some examples might help.

  21. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 1:22 PM

    I would do my best to sign Dunn, but consider all offers for Willingham and/or Morgan. I love everything about the Hammer, but we need prospects. For the rest of the season, you could try Morse in LF, where he could hopefully hide some of his defensive liabilities. Morgan is an exciting player when he's "on," but otherwise his game and fundamental lapses give me heartburn. Bernadina should be the everyday CF.BG

  22. Sam - Jul 8, 2010 at 1:35 PM

    I think we can summarize this into a quick conditional: if the powers that be in the Nationals' FO believe the Nats will compete in the next two to three years, keep Dunn around; else, trade him. He is already 30, meaning he will be getting worse every year. No point in having 3 good players on a bad team when you can build for a good team.

  23. Richard in BB - Jul 8, 2010 at 1:36 PM

    I agree with Court completly—you can shake good feilders out of a tree–but guys who can drive 'em out of the park are hard to come by!! We have , like Mark said, 3 already here, who get along, root for each other,and we need to re-sign both Hammer and Dunn – the sooner the better. When Harper gets here(if he does)offensely we're going to be a FORCE! A 4 year deal–@56 mill. will be fair, and he will go for it, IMHO.

  24. natsfan1a - Jul 8, 2010 at 1:47 PM

    Dang. I didn't see most of last night's game, as we were catching up with 1b, who is in town for a visit. Did manage to watch the bottom of the 9th, which was, um, eventful but gratifying. Sorry to have missed sec 222's anthem as well.We will be at the park tonight and tomorrow, however. Bought the tix months ago in anticipation of 1b's visit, but it looks like she managed to pull an SS start for tomorrow. Nice. As it worked out, it's also the first of his starts that I'll witness in person. Wish us luck. :-)

  25. Dave - Jul 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM

    Just numbers-wise, Dunn's fielding percentage this year at first is .994 with 4 errors. I know, that doesn't reflect range, but it's not bad. Pudge's fielding is .995 with 2 errors.I think the idea that Dunn is a terrible first-baseman is sort of like the idea that the Nats are the worst of baseball. Just not true, but it's the kind of nugget that lazy thinkers mindlessly repeat because everybody else says it.Sign him now, Rizz!

  26. WillC - Jul 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM

    When White Sox came calling about Dunn, Rizzo was willing to trade him. However Rizzo's asking price was 2B Gordon Beckham or OF Carlos Quentin. There is no way White Sox goes for a trade like this. This tells me Rizzo does think very highly of Dunn. The problem is that Dunn's people are probably asking for $20-25mil/year type deal for at least 5 years. Hopefully they will come to their senses and sign a more reasonable deal.My guess is that extension deal for 3year/$45mil or 4yr/$56mil would be reasonable. Considering his age, if he wants a longer deal, he will have to accept lower annual salary. Unfortunately, if Dunn wants his 5yr/$100mil and does not give in, this deal will never get done.

  27. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    Look, no one wants to trade Dunn for the sake of dealing him. As Mark points out, you shouldn't overpay a guy just to keep him around. If we are looking north of $16/4 it'd be time to look for deals.

  28. raymitten - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:23 PM

    Do not trade Dunn under any circumstances. Re-sign him. I'd give him whatever he wants as long as its within reason. He makes the whole lineup better — its no coincidence that Zimmerman's best years have come with Dunn protecting him. He also has improved immensely as a first baseman. I'd give him 4 years and $60 million without hestiation. And a no trade clause as well. I truly think that Dunn's value to this team cannot be overstated.

  29. Steve M. - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM

    Wow, it takes a guy to hit 3 HRs and win the game for the team for people to take notice.Dunn brings more than his own stats to the table. Zimmerman didn't get that Silver Slugger last year on his own, part of the success was Dunn behind him in the lineup which gave Ryan better pitches.

  30. Dave - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM

    Steve M., many of us have been posting here for weeks that Dunn needs to be re-signed. It didn't take last night's 3 dingers to do that.In fact, I was arguing it way back when he was slumping. And no, he's not a terrible first-baseman, either.

  31. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:32 PM

    5 years $100 million would be reasonable

  32. Traveler8 - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM

    Off-topic, but I also want to pass on kudos to Sec 222 and the Brothers Flanaghan – we particularly liked that total barbershop ending!

  33. Steve M. - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    Dave at 11:28. I don't buy it. Lots of bandwagon fans. There have been 3 of us on NatsInsider weekly calling for a Dunn contract extension. Yes, Dunn looked lost at the plate in April but when he got going and showed he was just slow out of the chute, I have been banging the pre-season promise of "When is Dunn going to get his contract extension?"For all the people ready to spend globs of money, I don't think it is necessary. Dunn had only a couple of takers 2 years ago and signed a 2 year $20 mill deal. There are only a few teams that will be willing to spend more and one of them would be the Red Sox as they have a need and the cash. Now that Dunn has transitioned to 1st base, there will be some more suitors.Dunn's deal was structured $8 mill in 2009 and $12 mill this year so you really don't have to pay him much more than $12 mill to keep him and for both sides a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.GET IT DUNN!!!!

  34. Dave - Jul 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM

    Steve M., I'm not sure exactly what it is you don't buy. That I am not a bandwagon fan? Whatever, man.I've been saying he should be re-signed since at least early May. Didn't realize you were tracking my comments so closely.

  35. Steve M. - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM

    Dave – If you supported him from Day 1 then great, welcome aboard.To me, it was a letdown that Dunn wasn't re-signed prior to Opening Day. His April slump didn't help his cause.Second, there are so many that have jumped all over Dunn when he has made an error or struck out 3 times in a game. His only issue as I have seen it was he was not putting the ball in play with RISP.Now, he has a monster game and everyone is coming out of the woodwork in support of Dunn. Those are bandwagon fans.There were discussions on here of Dunn's intangibles. He is a legit power man with high OBP. He makes those around him in the lineup better. There is great value in that. Zim's OBP goes up and Willingham gets more RBI opportunities.Dunn is getting better on defense, but won't be Don Mattingly out there.It would be great to see this roster held together "as is" so Rizzo can concentrate on a RH rightfielder and a 2nd baseman and backup catcher and fix the starting rotation.It is slim pickings for 1st baseman in Free Agency so that also makes Dunn more valuable. http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2010/6/10/1511148/adam-dunn-and-the-nationals-begin

  36. alm100 - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:31 PM

    Resign him Rizzo! Get it Dunn. Put me in the "his defense is not terrible" group. The Kennedy stop of the liner has been called a good play but I think Dunn catches that liner. he has also saved many Zimm errors with his tall reach and tag.

  37. Dave - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:31 PM

    I'm sorry–what is this "welcome aboard" junk? Is there a special club for people who have been "supporting Dunn from day 1"?So because you know of yourself and two others on Nats Insider who've been supporting Dunn, that means you guys are it? Sorry, you're not the only people who have been looking for a Dunn extension since the off-season. Don't feel so special.I don't really understand your foot-stamping about the Nats Nation's bandwagon fans. Anybody who has been reading Nats Insider since its inception is hardly a bandwagon fan. There are lots of us here. We're loyal to a team that lost 103 games last year. Some of us (including me) are season-ticket holders.What does it take to become a member?

  38. Dave - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM

    @alm100, I too didn't think Kennedy's play was a "great play." Looked to me like he should have caught the ball–which would have yielded the DP. I also think Dunn makes that catch.I'm not impressed with Kennedy so far this year.

  39. Steve M. - Jul 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM

    Non-bandwagon on Kennedy and Willie Harris and Wil Nieves.All great guys that need a change of scenery.How is Kennedy a defensive replacement? I don't get it. Michael Morse was sitting on the bench. That shot to Kennedy should have been a game ending double play.On a different note, its really a shame for the hot hitters that the All Star break is next week. Nyjer and Desmond are hitting again, Zim and Dunn are on fire. Morse is hitting again. Willingham is doing well.If Pudge and Guzy get back on track, this offense will put up a lot of runs!

  40. Steve M. - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Mark – Can you get out the word for the final vote for Zim?Less than 3 hours left. If everyone clicks for Zim 50 times from the different Nats Blogs then it should push Zim into 1st place!http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/all_star/y2010/fv/ballot_pop.html

  41. Matt - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM

    I know there are a lot of people screaming for Dunn to be resigned. I would love for them to resign Dunn, but Rizzo is trying to do what is best for the team long-term by keeping his options open. Other teams want to trade for Dunn BECAUSE the Nats have not extended him yet. Those potential trade partners would not be around if Rizzo had signed Dunn to a 4-year extension before the season.Now, if nobody offers a legit package of prospects and/or major-league talent then I'm sure Rizzo feels confident he can extend Dunn after the trade deadline or in the off season, as Dunn has been quoted several times saying he wants to stay in DC.Rizzo wouldn't be doing his job if he ignored Dunn's potential as a trade chip and flushed all those deals down the proverbial crapper.

  42. David - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM

    i think marrero is a ready made replacement for willingham in a year or two, but i dont see him being traded this year… maybe at the middle of next season. Dunn is improving at 1B and his OPS is above .900. i say sign Dunn for 3 years. by then hopefully we've traded away one or several of our surplus starting pitchers for a potential firstbaseman of the future. maybe even trade Dunn in the middle of year 3 for a legit 1st baseman prospect. i just don't want our 3-4-5 taken apart right now. we could get on a 8 game roll and be right in the thick of wild card.

  43. David - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:43 PM

    btw, i've done my part… voted for zim 40 times until my hands couldn't take the carpal tunnel syndrome risk anymore, i hope you guys are joining in too!

  44. court - Jul 8, 2010 at 5:44 PM

    In other news…Jordan Zimmermann just steam-rolled some A ball team:3IP, 0 R, 1 H, 0 BB (1 hbp), 5 KHe allowed a double in the first while striking out the side and hit a guy in the second, and had a 1-2-3 third. Got this from Potomac's webpage so no idea what the radar gun said.Exciting stuff!

  45. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM

    Ha! Don't ask Mark to petition for Zim. Ask Ladson or Goessling to do it. They're the ones employed by subsidiaries of the Nats. Mark is a staunch independent journalist.

  46. A DC Wonk - Jul 8, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    "Do not trade Dunn under any circumstances. Re-sign him. I'd give him whatever he wants as long as its within reason."Well, yeah. That's probably exactly what Rizzo is already thinking.It's also true that lots of players prefer to not negotiate so much, if at all, during the season. So, if we don't get much movement, I wouldn't worry about it so much. Rizzo is plenty aware that our 3-4-5 is among the league's best and will not be so quick to break that up.

  47. court - Jul 8, 2010 at 7:04 PM

    Trade talk might also give Dunn's side a little more incentive to get a deal done. My guess is that Dunn want's 5 years and close to $100mil, while the Nats would rather do 3/$45mil, or almost half. I, for one, am encouraged by what Rizzo is reportedly asking for, which pretty much means nobody will give it to us. Zim's throwing his weight around in public too which will help. But deep down, I have a feeling this is all negotiating ploys and Dunn will be back for the next few years. As someone above pointed out, there is no one waiting in the wings. You don't move top players unless they're blocking a top prospect, which certainly is not the case here.

  48. Sunderland - Jul 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM

    @Dave – If Steve M allows you to bring a guest on the bandwagon, would you please pick me?I've wanted Dunn re-signed as well, but never got a membership application to the club.I also want Guzman traded.If there's a club for that, someone let me know.

  49. natsfan1a - Jul 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM

    Geez, I am soooo torqued. I've been following the Nats since 2005, but I also did not receive my bandwagon membership application. Or would that be my non-bandwagon membership application? I'm so confused. Any help that the Grand Nats Poobah(s) could provide would be very much appreciated. :-)

  50. Section 222 - Jul 8, 2010 at 7:26 PM

    Off topic — Thanks @Traveler8 and thanks to Mark for the shoutout last night about our anthem performance. @nats1a, we're scheduled to do it again on Friday, August 13 vs. AZ. Get your tix now! My two cents – Dunn is worth more than any prospects we might be able to get for him. People keep talking about how his skills will soon decline, but they were saying that last year too. 40 HR/year guys simply don't grow on trees. I'd certainly give him a 3 year contract, and even 4 if that's what it takes. If he only hits 25 in year 4, that's still a darn good number and his play at 1B has been more than adequate. Who would replace him? Chris Marrero? Please.

  51. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 7:33 PM

    It's really funny when the way we think of people, or players in this case, is shown to be completely wrong.If you had asked me what the age difference was between Dunn and Howard, I would've said that Dunn was five years older. They're 10 days apart!Did anyone else think as I did on this?

  52. Natslifer - Jul 8, 2010 at 8:12 PM

    There's two points that no one seems to be talking about here:1) Why did Dunn sign a "below-market" deal to play for the Nats in the first place, and2) Why did the Reds let him go / why are the Reds battling with St. Louis for 1st place in the Central AFTER Dunn left.The answer is that for a one dimensional player, Dunn relatively horrible under pressure. This year, his BA with RISP has climbed from around .150/.160 for most of the year to .200 now. With two outs and RISP, his BA this year is .057. Overall he strikes out 1 out of 3 times. With 2 outs, he strikes out almost 40% of the time. He is the guy that opposing pitchers want to face in a pressure situation (anyone say that about Ryan Howard??).The Reds let him go because time and again when their #4 hitter needed to deliver he didn't. If he stays with us he'll get another below market deal because his one dimension looks good at a gross level but at a detailed level costs us ballgames that he could win for us.Trade him now – he's had a good run and his value will never be higher. We don't have Joey Votto waiting in the wings but I don't think the Reds knew what they had in Votto two years ago either.

  53. Anonymous - Jul 8, 2010 at 9:55 PM

    Even if it aggravates Dunn, what Rizzo is doing makes sense. Gee Ryan you are what? 38-47? With that potent 3,4,5? The idea is to win. You aren't getting the job Dunn if that's the goal dudes.That said, yeah Dunn will likely be re-signed. But not before Rizzo uses him as a tool to see what other teams need, how much they value what he has to offer, trying to figure out how to improve what looks to be another last place finish. Ryan and Adam you don't like it? Then WIN BABY, JUST WIN? Okay?

  54. what's in a name - Jul 8, 2010 at 11:15 PM

    mark – you should delete the anonymous 12.14 post. personally rude and anti-semiticmr lint – bravo for a dignified response, and not hiding your name like anonymousanonymous – "oy-veyish?" shame on you.

  55. Dave - Jul 8, 2010 at 11:45 PM

    In the best of all possible blog worlds, the name "Anonymous" would not even be accepted by the software.You can type a name in there, people. Quit being so lazy and/or gutless.

Archives

NL EAST STANDINGS

W L GB
x-WASHINGTON 89 64 --
ATLANTA 76 77 13.0
MIAMI 74 79 15.0
NEW YORK 74 80 15.5
PHILADELPHIA 70 84 19.5
x-Clinched NL East title
Through Friday's games

NL PLAYOFFS STANDINGS

W L GB WCGB
x-WASHINGTON 89 64 --
y-LOS ANGELES 88 66 1.5
ST. LOUIS 86 68 3.5
-------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO 84 69 5.0 +1.0
PITTSBURGH 83 70 6.0 --
MILWAUKEE 79 75 10.5 4.5
x-Clinched division title
y-Clinched playoff berth
Through Friday's games

UPCOMING SCHEDULE
SAT: Nats at Marlins, 7:10 p.m.
SUN: Nats at Marlins, 1:10 p.m.
MON: OFF
TUE: Mets at Nats, 7:05 p.m.
WED: Mets at Nats, 7:05 p.m.
THU: Mets at Nats, 7:05 p.m.
FRI: Marlins at Nats (DH), 1:05 p.m., 7:05 p.m.
Full season schedule

Mark joins Rob Carlin and Joe Orsulak every Thursday at 4 p.m. on Comcast SportsNet for a half-hour show on the Nats, Orioles and rest of MLB. Re-airs Thursdays at 11:30 p.m., Saturdays at 9 a.m. and Sundays at 11:30 a.m.

ON THE RADIO

As ESPN-980 AM's Nats Insider, Mark makes daily appearances on the station's various shows. Here's the 2014 schedule (subject to change)...

MON: 12:45 p.m.
TUE: 2:30 p.m.
WED: 4:30 p.m.
THU: 2:30 p.m.
FRI: 1:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m.
SAT: 10:30 a.m.

*All times Eastern. You can also listen to the station on 94.3 FM, 92.7 FM and online at ESPN980.com. Click here for past audio clips.

Follow us on Twitter