Blog Entry

Nats land LaRoche

Posted on: January 4, 2011 8:42 pm
Adam LaRoche
With the first base market coming down to the nitty gritty, the Nationals and Adam LaRoche finally agreed to pair up, with the former Diamondback accepting a two-year deal, according to Peter Gammons of

The Orioles and Nats were doubly courting LaRoche and Derrek Lee, and when Baltimore (which reportedly offered LaRoche three years) signed Lee this deal became almost a foregone conclusion. No word yet on the financial details.

LaRoche, 31, becomes the replacement for Adam Dunn in Washington. He put up a .261/.320/.468 line at the plate with 25 home runs and 100 RBI last season and has hit 20-plus homers for six consecutive years.

Gammons reports LaRoche will take his physical on Thursday, so this deal should become official soon. He's probably just happy to know he's staying put for a couple of years after moving from the Pirates to the Red Sox to the Braves in 2009 and then staying just a season in Arizona.

-- David Andriesen

For more baseball news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsmlb on Twitter or subscribe to the RSS feed.


Since: Mar 20, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2011 5:01 pm

Nats land LaRoche

I am curious about the money the Nats are spending from one angle only really:

If the perennial cellar dweller 'Natinals' are going to spend $140+ Million in one offseason, doesn't that kinda send a message to the other "mid-majors" in MLB to start spending some of that revenue sharing cash?  Rumor has it last year King Bud made personal phone calls to certain front offices and said "Hey!  You gotta stop just lining your pockets..." (ever wonder how Ben Sheets got $10Mil?)

anyway, here's a side benefit of this LaRoche signing for the Nats...Ian Desmond's 34...yes THIRTY-FOUR..errors just went down about 8-10.  LaRoche can "pick-it" at 1st...

Since: Mar 30, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2011 2:38 pm

Nats land LaRoche

Seems like you have issues.

Since: Mar 31, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2011 11:09 am

Nats land LaRoche

Spartacus 007...

I agree with you that I enjoyed the days when comments were focused on the games and the players themselves. But, sports, like everything else in society evolves, and not always to our liking. It's the players, the teams & the MLBP union that have made salary the big topic of discussion. It is they who have put salaries in the stratosphere.

Why are we so concerned about player salaries? Well, they have a lot of impact on what it costs me to buy a ticket. Nope, they don't come in and steal money from under my mattress...but they make me take a lot more of that money in order to watch them live. Because of ticket prices (driven primarily by team greed and player salaries), I only go to one or two games a year...used to go to a dozen or so. A decent seat at Busch Stadium is $45.00 and up. Two sodas and a hot dog will cost me $15.00. Parking costs me $20.00 - $30.00 So, there's approximately $80.00 for me to go to a single game (just one person). That's why player salaries are a hot topic of discussion. If it significantly affects our billfolds/bank accounts to have a little fun just so someone else can get obsceneley rich, then yeah, it's a legit topic.

Albert Pujols, Chris Carpenter and Matt Holliday will make more...just the three of them...than several small market teams will have for  a complete team salary. I'm a Cardinals fan and love having them there. I have no problem with them making an elite salary. But everything, including compensatrion for special talents possessed by only a few, has a point of absurdity...and I feel baseball player salaries have entered into that arena of absurdity. For pratcical purposes, a person/family can live just as nicely on $10 million  as they can on $18 million. Keep in mind, that's per year...there are only so many things to buy. And the financial security of that family is assured on the lesser amount for several generations, short of totally absurd stupidity with how the money is handled. Several players now make much more than the team owners...more than top box office actors...more than most world famous singers.

Glad the Nats finally got a 1B. I'd like to see every team be as competitive as possible. I think LaRoche is a better pickup than Derek Lee. Lee is breaking down as he ages. Injuries and time seem to be allied against him. Although not as glamorous a player as Lee had been at one time, he is more consistant and you pretty know what you're going to get with him. Who knows with Lee?The Nats have a promising base of a few proven players and some very promising youngsters to build on. I wish them success.

But yes, player salaries are a legit topic for discussion.

Since: Sep 15, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2011 1:50 am

Nats land LaRoche sound like you lick the taint of america

Since: Jun 21, 2009
Posted on: January 5, 2011 6:16 pm

Nats land LaRoche

Why does anyone care about player salaries? Are the Nationals breaking into your home and stealing cash from under your mattress? The team is better with LaRoche than they were without him.  They had a nice offense already, but with Werth and LaRoche in place of just Dunn, it should be even better.

I miss the days when sports fans commented on the games and strategy, and weren't money-obsessed. Since sports franchises are not public, and therefore not required to disclose their finances, as long as they are not implicated in criminal activity it's no one's business how they spend their money or how they acquire it. If they are engaged in criminal activity, let that be the story, and not how they are spending it.

Since: Oct 12, 2009
Posted on: January 5, 2011 4:36 pm


Classic example of an HJ. This guy is horrendous. The Nats will win 64 games instead of 63 now. Oh yeah, his WAR is 1 game. What a loser. They call Washington D.C. "Loserville". What a waste of a franchise. It's the armpit of America.

Since: Oct 20, 2008
Posted on: January 5, 2011 1:35 pm

Nats land LaRoche

A 2-yr, $16 million deal ?  Does anyone know where the Nationals are getting this kind of money ?  Attendance is shameful, and a young prospect could probably do at least 80% as well in performance as Adam LaRoche, for a fraction of the cost...

Since: Nov 8, 2006
Posted on: January 5, 2011 11:23 am

Nats land LaBum

The only starting first baseman in the major leagues WORSE than Adam LaBum - Lyle Overbay. 

It sucks to be a Pirates fan

Since: Aug 17, 2006
Posted on: January 5, 2011 10:27 am

Nats land LaRoche

Yes Boras is that good.   If I could only get him to represent me.     I have never seen the wisdom of giving Beltre a six year deal, now six one year deals would make sense for the king of  contract year stats. 

Since: Oct 25, 2007
Posted on: January 5, 2011 8:57 am

Nats land LaRoche

Is Boras really this good?  LaRoche is the same age as Beltre, lower average, less defense but more consistent power and from what I read a good guy in the clubhouse unlike Mr. Don't Touch My Head Beltre.  One gets close to $100 million on a six year deal, one is happy to take two years and nothing close in terms of dollars, go figure.  At the end of the day they are pretty similar players, which means this is a good sign for the Nats and the ghost of Tom Hicks continues to haunt Texas, guess he must have cursed them after being forced out. 

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or