LaRoche just signed with Nationals for 2 years $24 million. That's less than Napoli and per year on par with Berkman for a much younger hitter who can also play the field. My first reaction was why didn't we just sign him for what we gave Berkman except give this younger guy the 2 year deal. Then I remembered the loss of a draft pick since Washington made the qualifying offer. Dang, that's really killing people's market value. I'm not the biggest Bourn fan, but nobody wants the guy it seems like in large part because of the loss of a draft pick because I'm sure plenty of teams could use him. Interesting to me because draft picks tend to be so tough to hit on anyway. Anyone else with thoughts on this?

Also, I think with the new rules you only have a certain amount of money you can spend to sign your picks, correct? So it seems like having 1 less pick at least allows you to allocate more money to th eother players you draft. Just a thought.

No, if you give up the draft pick, you also have to take the recommended slot $$ out of your budget. Basically, you pay for the draft pick, but you don't get a player out of it. It's a pretty hefty penalty, given the new CBA.

If Bourn didn't cost the Rangers a pick and the corresponding $$, I probably still wouldn't want Bourn, because I think it's basically a more proven guy in the mold of Gentry and Martin. But I'd be more understanding of it, if it should happen. To me, the likelihood of Bourn providing more value than Gentry and Martin isn't worth giving up the $$ and pick. It seems pretty unlikely.

So the Nats made a qualifying offer to LaRoche, and then signed him for less money. Granted it's one whole year more, but that's funny, and definitely means he lost this one. Definitely shows that the new CBA is screwing players over, and I'm sure that rule will be getting changed in the next CBA.

He probably liked it in Washington as well. There is some truth behind the hometown discount, even if it isn't much.

I don't think Josh or B.J. or Swisher got screwed by it. Also, this is the first year, so I expect teams will act differently next year.

For all the battles Boras has won, he's got some clients out there now who are on the wrong side of things...

Certain players will always be worth it, such as a guy of Josh's ability. Swisher only cost a 2nd rounder, IIRC.

A closer like Soriano? Um, probably not liking the new system.

Colt it is not quite a two year deal, this signing was clear from early November on. LaRoche wanted to return to the Nats on a 3 year deal. It will eventually near match Napoli's. There is a third year dual option, that way its a compromise where both sides can say they won. The Nats stuck to their guns and defined it as a 2 year, "no three year deals", while LaRoche, who like any pro ball player believes in his abilities, sees the third year as a given. Late October 2014. we will know.

Swisher only costs a 2nd rounder because the Indians sucked last year. That's still not a negligible cost, but I still don't think Swisher got screwed. He'll make $70m over 5 years; that's nothing to sneeze at.

Should have made a QO to Napoli. Would have been worth the risk of him taking it.