How you feel about the Nats and Bryce depends a lot on your outlook on the Nats.
The future is limited
Scherzer is 34 next year and time has to eventually come for him. Strasburg is 30, remains an injury risk, and has opt outs after 2019 and 2020. Rendon, who's like the secret key to the team could leave after next season as well. The Braves arrived a year early and the Phillies almost did. One or both of them are going to build teams for the next 5 years. The Nats need to focus on these next two years, when a semblance of the teams that brought them four playoff trips remain.
The future is mushy
The pitching doesn't look great down the road but Robles and Soto are here now and with Rendon and the other offensive weapons the Nats could remain playoff competitive with just a few tweaks. Sure in a few years the Nats could be out of pitching, but 3 years is forever in baseball time so we shouldn't assume that. We also saw the Mets rise up and fall out of contention so while we should be wary about the Braves and Phillies we shouldn't assume they'll be contenders for years.
The future is bright
This team missed out on the playoffs because of bad luck and injuries. Next year they'll be right back in the hunt Bryce or no Bryce. The Braves have shown they are nothing special and the Phillies aren't even a .500 team after all this. Soto and Robles set-up a core through the middle of next decade that they can pretty easily find a way to build around in an NL East who's quality remains murky at best.
Which one are you?
Here's a fun exercise :
30 Million - Bryce
20 Million - Corbin
12 Million - Grandal
12 Million - Happ
5 Million - Random Reliable Reliever A
5 Million - Random Reliable Reliever B
You have 40 million or so to spend for next year after margin work. Make no assumptions on length of deal. You can lose Eaton's 8.5 Million in a trade if you sign Harper but at most that trade brings in one of those random reliable relievers. Go.
30 Million - Bryce -- No. Too much money.
ReplyDelete20 Million - Corbin -- Yes. Nats have to add an SP 2 or 3.
12 Million - Grandal -- Yes, definitely. Nats need catching help. I think Grandal will be more expensive, though.
12 Million - Happ -- Meh.
5 Million - Random Reliable Reliever A -- No, wait to see what you have.
5 Million - Random Reliable Reliever B -- Definitely no.
Nats also need to get a 2B, unless they think Kendrick can be a full-time starter.
Nats also need to sign Rendon NOW -- especially if they don't sign Harper. As a near GG third baseman, Rendon may be more valuable than Harper.
The only way they keep Harper is if they trade Eaton and/or sort of overlook Zim's 2019 salary. Harper can be platooned at first in 2019, and then move to 1st base in 2020 and beyond.
Sell high on Zim, sign Harper and move him to 1B, pick up Grandal and some relievers.
ReplyDeleteFrom the limited details on how the luxury tax is calculated, it would seem not as straight forward as just adding up numbers.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the justification for saying that there is only $40 million? I thought the team had $70-80 million coming off the books
ReplyDeleteChas R - yeah I'm going to go into payroll vs luxury tax in a post soon. Nats make it harder because of the deferrals. This is just meant to be a starting point for discussion.
ReplyDeleteSteven Grossman - Nats definitely want to get under cap (which is at 206 mill next year) and there have been statements that they want to be under 180 million or so. The ~40 million put them in a quasi position between those two figures, depending on how you look at money spent (as Chas was noting). If you want to push it a little repalce a Happ with a Keuchel (who might make more)( that's probably doable. replacing all the money though will definitely put them over the cap
I wouldn't bank on Kendrick being ready by April, seeing as the Nats medical staff is the 'watchful eye' on him. Difo again? Ugh. Kendrick is the super utility when one of the 7 INF/OF goes down.
ReplyDeleteI'd take Harper's money and use that for a Rendon extension.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what are your thoughts of trading Scherzer at his absolute peak?? 34 years old, logged a lot of innings, prime time to sell high especially if you think the Braves/Phillies are here to stay. Even with all of his deferred money, I could see two potential landing spots for him, teams that would have a need but also would be willing to pay for. Dodgers is one but IF and only if Kershaw opts out and than leaves in FA; Scherzer would be a good fit to replace Kershaw at the top of the Dodgers rotation, but not sure the Dodgers would have anyone we would like in return with all the trades they have made.
Which leaves my second team, and most likely landing spot for Max if he is traded as the Yankees, who need a top of the rotation work horse like Max with Luis Severino struggling in the second half of the year, Masohiro Tanaka one bad pitch away from being lost for the year and frankly no one else. It would be tough to lose him, yes, but let's say the Yankees offered Gleybar Torres & Justus Sheffield that would be pretty difficult to say no to. How about Gary Sanchez?? Sure, his defense sucks, and he's batting under .190, but he's got a cannon for an arm, still hits for power even with his .184 batting average, and will be anything better than they can get on the FA market at the catching position. Yankees get Scherzer, Nats get to pick 2 of these 5: Torres, Sanchez, Miguel Andujar, Torres, or Chance Adams. Which team says no first?? If the 2 the Nats pick are Sanchez & Andujar I don't think it makes them that any worse for next year. Look at how many games we ended up losing with Scherzer pitching anyways. If the record was 30-3 in those games there's no way you do that, but when they are probably only like 23-10 in those games would it hurt to try to get more offense and have two to three #2's and #3's??
You don't trade Max. Period.
ReplyDeleteI think one of Robles/Soto will be very good next year, and maybe both (Robles is showing a little power and I feel certain his D will round out to the plus side once he adjusts to being up here and learning the park and hitters). Harper has been making noises that has been a great year for him, which makes me think he doesn't quite get what it takes to win. His D is very poor this year and that makes me want to keep Rendon and let him go to someone who wants to spend a lot on Brand Bryce
ReplyDeleteI think: Extend Rendon. Go after Corbin, Keuchel/Happ, Grandal, and a stopgap second baseman like Asdrubal Cabrera (he's a FA). But Rendon, pitching, and catcher are my priorities.
Agreed. I regretfully let Bryce go, sign Corbin or Keuchel, extend Rendon, sigh either Ramos or Grandal. That should be about 40m for next year with room to sign a reliever possibly.
DeleteMax David, interesting idea with trading Max at his peak, but take the Yankees out of the equation. When deGrom came up in trade talks this year, the Yankees were adamant that they wouldn't include Torres, Sheffield or Sanchez in any trade. deGrom has more trade value than Max and they wouldn't budge. There is NO way they would trade that much.
ReplyDelete30 Million - Bryce, not because he may be worth that much from a pure competitive standpoint, but because I think the failure to re-sign Bryce may damage season ticket sales for years to come. In particular, if a team in the NL East, such as the Phillies outbid the Nats for Bryce, I think season ticket sales and ticket sales to hometown fans will probably decline sharply next year and in following years unless the Nats put together a team that reaches the World Series.
ReplyDeleteThe Capitals and hockey became relevant in DC in large part because Leonsis signed Ovechkin to a big long-term contract. Historically, DC is a much bigger basketball town than a hockey town, but the Bullets-Wizards have been an afterthought for almost 40 years, because not only were they not big winners, but it was known that Pollin would not spend the money on big name free agents to make the team competitive. I still remember when the Lakers signed Mitch Kupchak away from the Bullets in 1981. Although I had followed the Bullets for years to that point, I stopped caring about them after Kupchak was signed away, because I could see that that Lakers were willing to spend the $$$ necessary to compete for the NBA championship and the Bullets weren't. And, if the owners of the Bullets didn't care very much if they could compete for the NBA championship, there was not much reason for me to care about the Bullets.
In 2018, I just think Harper is worth far more to the Nats than any other team, not so much from a competitive standpoint, but from a business standpoint.
BorninDC: I think the main reason to sign Bryce is what you cite. His WAR is iffy this year and if his defensive slide continues, that spells trouble--he'll have to move to first. But some have already suggested that's where Soto will wind up. Still as a brand, Bryce adds a lot and the fans like him, even if his cockiness sometimes grates a bit. It really comes down to whether the Lerners are willing to exceed the luxury cap to keep Bryce AND Rendon. Competitively, I think Rendon is more important, but he's not as marketable, and if there's no Bryce, marketing pressure on below-the-radar Rendon could be counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteIf the Lerners can accept Bryce's additional value (attendance, buzz, merch) and then write off the luxury penalty as worth it because of that additional value, that would be great, but they don't seem to think that way.
If signing Bryce means losing Rendon, then you keep butts in the seats, but you may not compete. Tough choice. Robles and Soto look capable of replacing Bryce's offense and then some, but not his box office appeal. He is a magnet and that is valuable. And he probably has one or two big seasons left in him and a bunch of pretty good ones like this year, so, yeah, maybe it's worth it, if you can put him at first for a big chunk of that contract.
Johnny Callison: I agree with you and others that, from a competitive standpoint, that Rendon is more valuable.
ReplyDeleteYet even more potential additional value from keeping Bryce is all of the promotions the Nats can run as he breaks various Nats team records.
I am hoping as Lerners make their decision on whether or not to re-sign Bryce and Rendon, they look at the pictures of the half-empty stands at FedEx Field as a reminder what happens when a fanbase for a team loses hope that the front office will ever build a champion. I grew up in this area and I never imagined I would ever see pictures of as many empty seats at a Redskins home game as you typically see today. Not only did the Redskins finally admit that there was no longer a waiting list for season tickets, but they even had to admit the home opener was not even a sell-out. Even when the Redskins had losing seasons in 1970, 1980 and 1988, they still kept selling out home games.
And the Nationals are nowhere near as entrenched in the hearts of most of Washington's sports fans as the Redskins were at their peak.
Forbes has the Nationals ranked as the 10th most valuable team in MLB, close behind the Phillies.
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5ab3cadf31358e79a28c83f0/10-washington-nationals/#4b0c0fc65e38
The ownershipo of the Nats needs to act like they are the 10th most valuable team in MLB or they should expect to start losing their fanbase.
I totally don't get the "Bryce puts butts in the seats" argument. Winning puts butts in the seats. Sure, if you have a perpetually mediocre team, it's better to have some star-types to help keep the more casual fans interested. But if the choice is between a 78-84 win team with a big name superstar and a 90-95 win team without the big name, there's no question I'd rather watch the better team, and I think most fans would agree.
ReplyDeleteIf the Nats don't resign Bryce, attendance will surely be down next year. But attendance will be down regardless, because the team's coming off a miserably disappointing season. If they put a first place team out on the field - or, if miracle of miracles, they win a post season series -- attendance will go back up.
Just for fun, a truly daft idea: Bryce started as a catcher, right? So sign him and play him at catcher! Voila, one stone, two birds. Thank you. My work is done here.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, I think fans do go to see particular star player. I bought tickets to more than one game in Boston when I made a trip up there about 20 years ago so that I would have a better chance of seeing Pedro Martinez pitch. If I ever go to LA, I expect I would try to do that to try to see both Trout and Ohtani play. If I go to an Astros game, I want to see Altuve. I'd be pissed off if that didn't happen. It's why no one wants to go to these Marlins games - not only do they stink, but who's worth seeing?
ReplyDeleteDo we have good guesses as to what Rendon, Roark, and Taylor will get in arbitration?
I suspect Taylor will be traded regardless, because he'll be making too much for a 4th OF.
If Bryce catches, you'd be lucky to get 100 games a year out him!
ReplyDeletedc rl,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that unlike MLB, unlike the NFL, is not a salary cap league. So unlike in the NFL, letting go of a superstar does not free up salary cap space for other players. Unlike in the NFL, if the ownership of the Nats ownership were willing to deal with the financial consequences from the luxury tax, the Nats could spend as much as they wanted to on players with no negative "competitive" consequences.
From a purely competitive standpoint, not having Bryce in 2019 probably makes the Nats less likely to be a playoff team in 2019. Also, the presence of Bryce on another playoff contender would help that team and make the Nats less likely to be a playoff team. Worse yet, if Bryce were to be on a playoff contender in the NL East, such as the Phillies, losing Bryce would hurt not only the chances of the Nats making the playoffs by reducing their number of wins, but could also increase the number wins the Nats would need to win the NL East.
For a somewhat similar short-term situation, consider this year when the Nats traded away Daniel Murphy to the the Cubs, a team which at the time was potentially competing with the Nats for a Wild Card spot this year. That trade not only decreased the potential of the Nats to win more games but increased the chance of their competitor, the Cubs to win more games. For this reason, most fans and sportswriters rightfully considered this trade as evidence that the Nats had thrown in the towel on the 2018 season.
If the Nats make the World Series next year without Bryce, all would probably be forgiven by the fans, but the odds that the Nats make the the World Series next year without Bryce are considerably less than 50-50 (even with Bryce they are considerably less than 50-50). But, by letting Bryce go, you have also now communicated to the fans that saving some money is more important to the team than winning and that's a way to lose a fanbase.
I think this situation would be even worse if Bryce ended up on a team such as the Phillies or the Mets, because it would communicate to the fans that the Nats ownership does not think it can compete on a regular basis with the teams in its division in Philadelphia and New York.
For comparison, for all of his many faults as an owner, I don't think that there is anything Daniel Snyder has ever done with the Redskins that has indicated that he thinks that the Redskins could not compete on a regular basis with the teams in the Redskins' division in Philadelphia and New York.
I think despite the penny pinching on managers and AAA teams, they do spend like a top-10 team. The trouble is that two of the clubs in their division should also be acting like that, and still could. Meanwhile, the best-run franchise (with just a little cheating, mind you) won the division again. I don't know where I fall on your question, Harper. I guess that makes me mushy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete$25M/year over 7 years for Bryce, with opt-outs after the 3rd and 4th year. I don't like shelling out that much money for any one player, especially in baseball. I agree that you can't put a dollar amount on him being in T-Mobile commercials or being an automatic All-Star every year (due to popularity), but I prefer value over marketability. If we can get a #2 and #3 pitcher with the money we'd pay him (~$30-$40M), I'd say that gives us a much better shot at staying competitive. If you want to win off the field, Max Scherzer is your commercial guy then, he's been the best pitcher in baseball since he's come to DC - a title that Bryce isn't sniffing. But winning off the field doesn't equal success. Take a look at our football team.
ReplyDelete"For comparison, for all of his many faults as an owner, I don't think that there is anything Daniel Snyder has ever done with the Redskins that has indicated that he thinks that the Redskins could not compete on a regular basis with the teams in the Redskins' division in Philadelphia and New York."
ReplyDeleteAnd where has this gotten us? You've got to be kidding me. Yeah, he thought we were a Deion Sanders, a Bruce Smith, an Albert Haynesworth, and an RG3 away from being competitive with Philly and New York. I don't want those in leadership to act like they "care" and sing me the Care Bears song as I fall asleep every night. I want them to make smart decisions that keep us competitive. An emotional appeal to the fans by an owner is the sign of weakness and zero leadership compass. Get outta here with this.
I wonder where we can find stats on player popularity by local fans? Jersey sales? Scherzer is a mature star you can build around, and I bet he only gradually declines. That's the star you plaster on your team marketing. Personally, I only check in on games to see how Soto, Rendon and Robles are doing (and even a bit of Turner). Bryce is boring. There's never a defensive highlight or a funky stolen base which is what gets on the web gems and drives casual fans. Home runs are boring (valuable but boring). I'm also skeptical that Bryce is a sustainable media personality.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Rendon, who is the team MVP in my mind, needs to get extended. They can just sign him again after 2019. If he's taking a below market value contract before his walk year, he'll probably take a below market value contract after his walk year. Besides, he's at peak value now, after another amazing year. You can always hope he has a dip next year and that you get him for a slight discount after.
In conclusion, Soto and Robles and Turner will fill plenty of seats.
@Born - What you say is technically right, but doesn't reflect MLB ownership reality. True, the luxury tax isn't a hard salary cap, but we've seen this year that even the deepest pocketed ownerships try very hard not to make a habit of exceeding the tax limit. So, yeah,if the Lerners were willing to blow thru the tax limit year after year, the answer would be sign Bryce for whatever he asks for, and also sign the best free agent SPs and catcher that you could. But that's not going to happen - there's effectively a choice between spending something like 18-20% of the player payroll on Bryce, or using those dollars to try to patch other holes in the roster. And for me, the question is, which is the choice that gives you a better chance of being a 90+ win ballclub.
ReplyDelete@billyhacker - Bryce isn't boring. Yes, he drives me nuts sometimes with all the falling towards first base when he's in a hitting slump, but good gravy. I can watch the video in this pinned tweet over and over again, especially with Charlie Slowes' freaking out over it.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/serious_jammage
And just to answer that question, and the one posed in Harper's post: if the Nats could sign Corbin and Grandal for about the same $$ as they'd have to pay Bryce, I'd do that. It patches two gaping holes in the roster for which they have no credible in house fixes,
ReplyDeleteOle PBN,
ReplyDeleteIn a league with a salary cap, I agree that overpaying for free agents such as Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Albert Haynesworth is a mistake. Even before we saw the results, the acquisitions of Deion Sanders and Bruce Smith were a mistake, because the players were already clearly on the downside of their careers before they were acquired by the Redskins. In fact, I thought it was a mistake to trade for Alex Smith this year, because I didn't think the Redskins were one player away from competing for a Super Bowl, so it made no sense to trade away a good young CB and a draft pick for a 34-year old QB who would be even older before the Redskins would have a team that was a Super Bowl contender. I would have preferred to let the Redskins tank this year in hopes of improving their draft position next year. The above being said, I had to "give the devil his due", i.e. I have to admit that Snyder has not claimed a lack of financial resources as a reason for not signing or re-signing players.
But in MLB, with no salary cap, the teams with the bigger payrolls tend to be in the playoffs more: witness the presence of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs, again, in the playoffs this year. Sure, a low salary team such as the Royals, can win the occasional World Series, but then they often sink into mediocrity for many years afterwards. Also, the window for winning a World Series tends to be shorter for the small market club.
Several posters have treated the soft ceiling on salaries (as opposed to the hard ceiling in NFL) as if it was not consequential. The thought being put forward: if you are rich, then you can just spend as much as you want.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is different and wondered if someone could clarify. I understood: each year that you exceed the salary cap, the percentage of payroll subject to the luxury tax increases. Further, exceeding the salary limit diminishes your allowance for international player signings and reduces the value of any compensatory picks. LA Dodger have been above the cap and very consciously went under this year to re-set all these penalties.
Also, the value of the international pool is important--I think both Soto and Robles were signed that way. Are these accurate statements on the penalties? Are there others?
BornInDC, of the teams you suggest ignore the cap, both the Yankees and Dodgers did everything they could to get under the cap this year (and are still going to playoffs). And those teams really do have near infinite money. But the cap matters.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe Dodgers were over it for quite a while, though they do have a huge cable deal to fund things:
From MLB:
Each year, clubs that exceed a predetermined payroll threshold are subject to a Competitive Balance Tax -- which is commonly referred to as a "luxury tax." Those who carry payrolls above that threshold are taxed on each dollar above the threshold, with the tax rate increasing based on the number of consecutive years a club has exceeded the threshold.
The threshold was $189 million from 2014-16, but the following increases were put in place per the 2017-21 Collective Bargaining Agreement:
2017: $195 million*
2018: $197 million
2019: $206 million
2020: $208 million
2021: $210 million
*For 2017 only, clubs that exceed the threshold shall pay the average between what their luxury tax would be under the 2017-21 Collective Bargaining Agreement rules and what it would have been per the previous CBA.
A club exceeding the Competitive Balance Tax threshold for the first time must pay a 20 percent tax on all overages. A club exceeding the threshold for a second consecutive season will see that figure rise to 30 percent, and three or more straight seasons of exceeding the threshold comes with a 50 percent luxury tax. If a club dips below the luxury tax threshold for a season, the penalty level is reset. So, a club that exceeds the threshold for two straight seasons but then drops below that level would be back at 20 percent the next time it exceeds the threshold.
Clubs that exceed the threshold by $20 million to $40 million are also subject to a 12 percent surtax. Meanwhile, those who exceed it by more than $40 million are taxed at a 42.5 percent rate the first time and a 45 percent rate if they exceed it by more than $40 million again the following year(s).
Beginning in 2018, clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead.
History of the rule
The 2012-16 Collective Bargaining Agreement required clubs to pay a 17.5 percent luxury tax for first-time overages. Clubs that exceeded the threshold for two, three and four consecutive years were taxed at 30, 40 and 50 percent rates, respectively.
Example
In 2013, the Los Angeles Dodgers exceeded the Competitive Balance Tax threshold with a payroll well over $200 million in total. The Dodgers also exceeded the luxury tax threshold in 2014, 2015 and 2016, incurring progressively steeper penalties each year as a result.
Those seemingly too minor salary moves in August will certainly keep them from spending 20 million more than the threshold, and there's a small chance they will get below $196m depending on the salaries on the 40-man roster and the benefits calculation.
ReplyDeleteSign Harper and Corbin, you can do this because the money will be deferred, after all these are Nats contracts. Trade Eaton for relievers and/or a 2B. Trade Kieboom for a catcher.
ReplyDelete@ DC RL
ReplyDeleteI'll take it one step further: Sign Corbin, Grandal AND LeMahieu (Colorado 2b, FA after this season) for a little more than they'd give Harper. 3 birds killed with 1 stone.
Definitely trade Taylor, hopefully for a reliable reliever. With or without Harper, Taylor is excess baggage the team doesn't need next year and in arbitration will be way too much money to pay for a 4th OF. I'd keep Eaton around, unless you can get an innings-eater SP as the main return piece which I don't think a lot of teams would be willing to do. Will the Royals take Eaton for a Danny Duffy let's say, Jays for a Marco Estrada type, those are the kind of deals I would make for Eaton. He could be a valuable piece next year, and his salary makes him much more valuable, don't discard him with the trash heap. At worst, we could trade him at the deadline next year. IMO, everything that needs to get filled for 2019 can be filled via free agency or via a Taylor trade (RP, SP, C, 2b).
The future is both limited and mushy. This year's edition of the Nationals most certainly did NOT miss the playoffs because of injuries and bad luck so much as indifference and bad play.
ReplyDelete1. Get Rendon and maybe Trea signed long term soon.
2. Make a seriously hard bid for Patrick Corbin. J.A. Happ and reliable Gio Gonzalez are fallback options.
3. Maybe with some work and luck we can turn the Kieboom brothers into the 21st century's version of the Alou brothers.
4. Re-sign Greg Holland.
5. Beyond that I will hope Rizzo guess right this off season, starting with
6. Fire Davey Martinez and Kevin Long. Bring back Dusty Baker or get Joe Girardi. Lerners, stop being cheapskates when it comes to managers.
Blovy8,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that info on the Luxury Tax. Based on your information, it appears that the Nats are limited on what they could offer Bryce.
The one coach that should go is Lilliquist he was awful! Now I don't live in Washington, I live in the New York area, so I only watch them when they play on national TV/Yankees/Mets, but it seems like every SP except Max took a massive step back this season.
ReplyDeleteFire DMart and bring back Dusty....lol. C'mon Sammy, you know that just ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDelete@Max David: I think you're overvaluing MAT. He got pushed out in Washington. You act like there's several teams who NEED him. You said it yourself: "Taylor is excess baggage the team doesn't need..." Yes, that goes for other teams as well. And without Bryce, I'd like to think we need him as a 4th OF, especially with no one behind him.
ReplyDeleteInjuries are inevitable and great teams build from the bottom up and not focus entirely on the starting 9. 'Next man up' mentality. We got hit hard with injuries this year. So much so, that our back-up's back-up got hurt too. Can't plan for that, but not resigning Bryce and shipping Taylor out sets us up worse than this past season.
I agree that we shouldn't rush to unload Michael Taylor. There is significant value in having a defensive replacement/next man up for the outfield, who really plays the outfield. Beyond that, you can backfill with super-utility players and extra first basemen playing LF...but that shouldn't be your first option.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't want to trade him, I don't agree that MAT has no value for another team, although I have no idea what you could get back in return. He is a superior defender and has at times been a good hitter with power. Given a fresh start, better instruction, and regular playing time, there is a chance he becomes a valuable player who we wish we had back (think Blake Treinin). I think a number of teams might be willing to trade with the hope that he blossoms in a new environment (again think Blake Treinin).
j6p31u9m08 n4t52m9q68 t3w58y1j06 n8s03a0f48 j6g72b1c37 e5p97h5n84
ReplyDelete