The first thing that keeps coming back is that it's too many years. It just is. Whatever you think about Werth, and I think he's very good, and whatever you think of how much he's being paid, this is too much. Seven years will cover Jayson from age 32-38. Last year there were only 38 players ("how about that!" says Mel Allen) age 38 or older in the major league, 22 hitters. Only 8 had more than 300 at bats and only 2 (Jim Thome and the well-rested Jim Edmonds) were good. There is no way the Nats are getting 7 years of good play out of Jayson Werth. It's very likely the Nats won't get 7 years of any kind of play for Werth. The last 2-3 years of this deal, in those years specifically, is money thrown away.
As for the money, it IS too much, but I don't really care about that. You might be able to argue he was worth 18 million last year. That was his best year ever. Will he be worth that much in a single year ever again? I doubt it. Still, as long as you aren't setting strong limits in your spending on a yearly basis I don't think it matters. It's only when teams go "oh we can't pay for that over there, because we're paying for this over here" does it become an issue. The Nats were that kind of team, but maybe this signals they aren't going to be anymore. We'll see, right?
Anyway you look at it, yearly cost or amount of years, it was an overpay, and as Michael Richards would say - that's what's so insane about it. The Phillies were offering a deal of somewhere around 16 million a year for 4 years. With that knowledge I can see the Nats giving Werth 18 mill a year for 4 or maybe 5 years. I can see the Nats signing Werth to a 7 year deal, for maybe 90 million. But to overpay in years AND in dollars. I don't get why it had to be like that.
Draft picks? The most overrated thing in baseball today. I've said it once and I'll say it over and over again until I turn blue. Every team can't possibly succeed through draft pick hoarding, cheap player development, and smart budget-level free agent signing. It just can't be done. And that's a loooong process to go through just to fail and watch yourself have to start all over again. It's asinine to act like every team should follow this singular path to success. So if anyone starts talking in this manner, feel free to ignore them until the subject changes. I'm not saying the Nats move wasn't a mistake - you can make that argument. I'm just saying if they start framing it in the "well the Nats should have used the draft picks from Dunn to slowly develop, blah blah blah" that there is probably little actual thinking behind this.
I say it can be argued the deal was a mistake. Do I think it was a good deal? No. It isn't. I can't look at a deal that overpays in every way it can for a guy who will be 32 next year and say it's a good deal. I have to believe that they could have somehow worked out more favorable terms. Also, we all know they could have kept Dunn for 4 years probably 52 million or so. It isn't just signing Werth, it's signing Werth vs signing Dunn AND having 5 million a year for 4 years AND having 54 million more dollars for three years after that AND having a couple draft picks. That teeter-totter has Werth pretty high up in the air. Down the road, unless the Nats move to truly be big spenders, this could hurt them.
Of course that doesn't mean it's a all-time worst-ever deal. It only can be a debacle if Werth gets injured, which isn't out of the realm of possibility. You'll hear this contract compared to those given Barry Zito and Vernon Wells, both because they were paid 126 million and because they were good players that got paid like great ones. However, both of these guys also showed a tendency to mix pretty average years with good years, and that was in their late 20s. Chances were not only good that their contracts would be bad, but that they could be bad quickly. Which they were. Werth though has been consistently good the past few years... when healthy. That's the key. If he's healthy he will likely give the Nats 2-3 more excellent years and that's the point really. A terribly expensive point to make, but the point nonetheless. This is to give the Nats credibility and a better shot at keeping the young stars they have as much as it's for winning.
It's still not enough though. Unless they fill the first base hole and get that ace pitcher, the Nats are still also-rans, except now they would be also-rans with a unwieldy contract hanging over their heads. In for 1.8 billion pennies a year, are the Nats in for a pound?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Agreed it was too many years for too much money. My biggest concern is if he can produce in a line-up which isn't as formidable as Philadelphia. If he can keep his power numbers up, he can always be traded to the American league for the last couple of years of his contract and the signing does say the Nationals are going to sit around and field a AAA club.
I like the move...i could care less about overspending and too many years. The fact is they SPENT money and beat the Mets/Yanks/Sox to a player. I dont wanna see the DC Pirates and this at least shows they are willing to spend cash.
There may be residual value in that paying this much may help convince other top players that the Nats are serious. While I agree that it's too much for Werth alone, if it's the difference in getting Grienke or Garza, it may be worth it.
Anon #1 - he could be dealt but probably with the Nats eating some of the contract (or picking up their own bad one). Of course this is all just guessing about years in the future, like telling you what the weather will be like next week.
Anon #2 - I'll say this - I like the spirit of the deal, if not the details.
Donald - true. it may also be worth keeping a good relationship with Boras. you help us keep Strasburg / Bryce for fair deals, we'll overpay for your guys here and there...
I think that performance over contract life is the biggest worry - catastrophic injury should be protected against by insurance (your 'not getting 7 years of any kind of play' comment I assumed meant career-shortened injury). Yeah, it is too long but it doesn't have to be ruinous. They'll have to pay Zim then at a minimum, but if they can manage to 30% of the lineup being cost-controlled guys, they should be ok. And for all the grief that SF and TBJ rightfully get for those contracts, both orgs are doing ok, right? Werth could follow a Mike Cameron-career arc, making his contract more like a Magglio-overpay than a Zito disaster. And I am glad they did it. About time the Lerners spent some dough.
From previous thread - assuming that their (SS and Bryce) careers proceed towards stardom, I think Boras takes both to free agency. As Harper said, SS just seems like a west coast guy, and Bryce is ticketed for yanks. Lifelong yankee fan, wants the spotlight. Probably sees himself as a 21st century Mickey mantle (and maybe he will be). Oddly, I think that we may have a better chance keeping SS - he is more quiet, and if he can get comfortable here, and the team looks like it is winning, maybe he chooses that path. The farm boy just looks like he anxious to get to the big city.
I like getting getting him but wow is this an overpay. Makes the Pudge contract seem reasonable.
And if we're paying this much for Werth, I wonder what Zim's deal will be considering he's younger and better.
I used Chris' time machine to bring back this picture of Zimmerman celebrating his new contract
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4XbnIUEPY3Y/SYCwZFpTnhI/AAAAAAAAAR8/y1c2j7AqcSE/s400/scrooge_mcduck.jpg
Yep, just too many years. He's not the iconic, frontline perennial All-Star that warrants that type of deal, especially in this market.
I agree with Donald, that if the move delivers Greinke or Cliff Lee, it may pay itself off... But that is a huge gamble on a declining player.
Why couldn't they have knocked just a pinch off the overpay on this one and kept Dunn.
Fans often think of events in exclusion, but the reality is this Werth deal was in the works. The team knew it was going to pay X for Werth. Had they paid X minus Y, they may have been able to keep Dunn.
Caveat: I'm a Dunn fan and only lukewarm on Werth.
The deal is stupid, plain and simple. If we are going to throw silly amounts of money around, use it on an actual elite player such as Crawford or Lee. Werth has had injury issues and has benefited from a hitter's ballpark. When he is 36-37 and we actually have a chance at contending, this deal could hold the team back.
Bryan -- I think the other part of the Dunn-Werth decision seems to be FO preference. I think Rizzo is just much higher on Werth and thinks he's a more valuable player, and so was willing to pay him more. Whether or not this was the right move is beyond me.
The Nats needed bats last year and badly needed bats when Dunn left. Werth provides offensive production, though of a different mix than Dunn, and upgrades the defense. The Nats needed to do this to staunch the loss of an already eroding fan base and needed to overpay for too many years to attract a top free agent. Prognosticators can decide which will be worse: the last 3 years of this contract or the next 3 years of Derek Jeter.
DSK
DD - I think "declining player" might be a little unfair to Werth but yes big gamble... and that's factoring in luring another FA.
Bryan/Matt - because as Matt says, keeping Dunn was never really an option for Rizzo. At least not at market value.
Anon #1 - I think it's alot to already look to the future and say that 2015 or 16 would be contending years. Part of me likes an approach that forces them to be a contender much quicker. Now will the go through with it...
Anon #2 - Comparison to the Jeter contract are actually pretty apt. The Yanks can afford Jeter because they spend money everywhere else. Are the Nats going to make that kind of commitment come 2014+ to cover the back end of this deal?
In the end it was rough around the edges, but years 2-4 he was borderline elite and last 3 not as bad as you thought…he was even almost league average at the plate in age 37 season
Post a Comment