Bryce ruminations

It's hard to quantify Bryce. I've think there is some underestimation of what Bryce is by both the non-Nats fan public and the online Nats fan. The non-Nats fan public takes a glance at the stats, the lack of playoff wins, remembers the hype and the very early "attitude" problems, and calls the whole thing disappointing. The online Nats fan, understands better what should be dismissed about the above, but they tend to be a little too dismissive about his impact off the field.* 

Bryce is someone that loves the spotlight and does well in it. He is the touchstone for the team, especially the younger and casual fans. His personality is admittedly rather bland when you get him down to interview, but despite that he's able to be sold as some sort of bad boy basher because he has that X-Factor. 

Rendon might have been just as important but leans away from it. Zimmerman is the long time face and probably only a little blander in interviews, but just doesn't have "it" (see: Trout, Mike). Max is great, but Max you see only every 5 days. Doolittle is pretty good, but hasn't been here long enough to have a deep following and might be right back out that door after next year. Soto, Robles, and Turner, while talented, haven't shown any sellable spark yet.

But Bryce is not the end all be all. He hasn't come through every year, often hobbled by injuries turning a team-carrying superstar into a mere star. He's had big playoff moments but because of the same tendency to get injured has rarely been able to have the impact you think he should. He's ALMOST the player he was expected to be, the generational talent that could define great offense for the next 15 years, but he's not that. Instead he's a guy that's continually on the precipice of that. A season here, a half-season there. And because of his age that still works, but it won't for much longer.

That last statement is what makes signing Bryce different than your typical free agent. Bryce is still only 25. He's half a year younger than Wilmer Difo. Here are the Nats in 2018 that had at bats that are more than a year younger than Bryce : Juan Soto, Victor Robles, Andrew Stevenson.  Here are the pitchers that threw a pitch for the Nats this year that are more than a year younger than Bryce :  

That's no mistake - there aren't any. Bryce is still young. Not very young, but young and that means his future is still a future. The fact that he's had so much experience by now makes it a pretty clear future but there is still room for change and growth. But the primary selling point is not improvement, it's that the fear of non-injury based decline anywhere in the plannable future - even out to 5 years, is minimal.  That is rare in a long-term signing.

What is clear is if he's healthy he's an All-Star plus caliber offensive player. What's not clear is how he fits into a defense scheme and if, in fact, he can stay healthy.

I don't know exactly what to do here. Bryce has the ability to be a singular player, but as we've seen with the Angels, a singular player by himself, even the best one, cannot get a team to the playoffs himself. That's not how baseball works. So if you are betting on Bryce, signing him and bringing him back, you aren't just betting on Bryce. You are betting on your own ability to build a winning team around him with the remaining funds available.** For the Nats that may be only 10-15 million more in 2019 if you sign him. Can you do that?  The Nats have been able to do build a winner with less money than that but that was when they found themselves with 3-4 underpaid starting pitchers and 3-4 underpaid starting offensive players for 4-5 years. Now they have a similar base of offensive players - maybe even better if both Robles and Soto hit - but possibly no underpaid starting pitchers.  Is the best move going forward putting that much money into the offense?

That's the crux. The Nats going forward likely can be good enough offensively to win already, at least in 2019. They may not be able to be good enough on the mound. Do you double down on the more reliable offense, and sign the team defining player, or do you try to throw money at the more variable issue in pitching? They arguably tried the latter this year, ignoring a hole at catcher and buying into the pen. That didn't work.  And if you do choose the offense there's even a choice. Do you build around Bryce as part of your core for the next four years, or bet on being able to do it with Rendon - the more reliable strong defender with a bat but who's older and has no real interest in being marketed?

I'll say this - signing Bryce will not be the wrong move. He's a great offensive player that makes a team better. The Nats may follow it up with other wrong moves and fail to win. Or they may follow it up with no moves and fail and blame budget, but that's on them, not on Bryce.  It's never a mistake to sign a good player.

*The online fans are right in their overall point, though. It's winning that drives the bus for attendance. Bryce may help boost it, but he's the finishing touch, not the main ingredient. 

**Really in a sense you are betting on your ability to build a winning team around 90 million for Bryce, Max, and Stras - assuming Stras stays.