Hey, Howie's probably back. That's good!
Lerner opened his big trap yesterday and said things.
He's almost certainly spinning this. They almost certainly can afford this. They have billions, just made a ton more money with the deep playoff run and championship (which will continue to pay off in merchandise and ticket sales in 2020), and stand to have another windfall from the MASN deal at some point now sooner than later.
But let's be honest, this is just how owners talk. It's like telling your kids in the store you can't afford to buy each their own ice cream. You totally can - but you have a budget in your mind for desserts and that doesn't include a tub of Haagen-Dazs for Tommy, a box of Magnum ice cream bars for sister Sue, and few artisan pastries for your Mommy. They have a budget in mind for the team and that doesn't include spending a ton on both Rendon and Strasburg. That's what he's really saying.
How is that possible you might ask? We do (supposedly) know that the Nats put a 7/210 offer on the table for Rendon when Strasburg still hadn't agreed to an opt out. If they could have afforded it then, why not now? Well I have three theories which I'll give you from least likely to most.
Theory 1 : The long term plan.
In this theory the Nats had a plan on what they wanted to do 5 years down the road. Maybe it was a plan where they built another Top 5-10 payroll team around a ridiculous Juan Soto contract. Maybe it was an eventual slow tear down to rebuild. We don't know but we can assume whatever they offered Rendon, they saw how this fit into that plan and five years would be post Strasburg's initial contract so that wasn't factored in. But now they are looking to re-up Strasburg for a bunch of years AND Rendon for a bunch of years, and doing both would disrupt whatever that fiscal plan was.
Why do I consider this least likely? Well it's pretty dumb in baseball to count on anything five years down the road. Too much variability. You can certainly tear down and say "we hope to be better by then" but neither of these plans were than. A slow teardown also doesn't really fit with re-signing Rendon.
Theory 2 : Got the title, now let's tighten ranks
The Lerners are by nature not big spenders. You can read any article about the organization, including some early Nats ones, and see that. However they maintained, once the Nats became competitive, a healthy payroll. Sure they could have splurged a little more, but they have been Top 5ish and the yells from the cheap seats (which I was sitting in) of "CHEEEEEEEEEEEP" have gone by the wayside. However, what if those payrolls were driven by one single desire? What if ultimately money kept flowing out because Uncle Ted desperately wanted to have a winner before he passed? If that's the case than when the Nats got that final out of the series that also marked the final out of top tier payrolls. The Nats could now pare down to a number they were more comfortable with which is... well we don't know really? We know what it is when they are bad (pay nothing), but not when they are still able to compete
I consider this possible, but I like my other theory better
Theory 1 : The contract puzzle pieces fit
We know that contract was 7/210. What we don't know is how it was structured. We have seen in the past the Nats do funny things with contract to make the money flow be how they want it to be. So it's easy to imagine that the Nats planned for a 2020 where they had planned to pay out Strasburg 25 million a 2021 where he would make 15 and a 2022 where he would make 15 and worked Rendon's contract around that. Maybe it started with 20 million, then 35 million a piece in the next two years. Whatever it was, it worked for the Nats. But Rendon rejected that, preferring the more lucrative money in hand. And Strasburg opting out might mean the same payroll numbers won't be seen in those year. It certainly means the luxury tax number will go up as his average AAV jumps.
So for the Nats they are faced with a very real possibility of 60+ million to the luxury tax with only about 70 million currently free and several rosters spots after that to fill. Signing both would mean pushing the deferred money on smaller deals, which is harder to do, or accepting going over the tax. Also hitting some number in payroll likely higher than the pictured.
It matters which theory because that will effect how the Nats move in the next couple of years. If it's #2 we should see a sharp reduction in salary. If it's #1 we should see maintenance but that has been done through some financial movement they may not be able to do with every free agent. If it's #1 who knows? Regardless the point is something fans pretty much understood would be true - the Nats weren't bringing back both stars - is now closer to reality and for a reason Nats fans didn't want to hear. It's not because of crazy outbidding by more desperate teams, but at least in part because the team itself reached whatever self-imposed limit it set. The contracts they end up with may be perfectly reasonable high-end market deals, maybe not even high-end, but the Nats would still be out because they set their overall number. A few weeks after the incredible high of winning it all, this marks a bad start to the post-Championship era.
Maybe the cheapskate should just sell the dang team.
ReplyDeleteYeah, sell them to a conglomerate that doesn't even have the benefit of a sentimental nonagenarian. I despise the Lerners, but I like them better than basically anyone who's bought a team since the Lerners did. Cincy and Texas owners might be less hateable, but imagine getting bought be an entity like Atlanta's Liberty Media overlords.
ReplyDeleteThink that in Lerners' mind the WS win validates their approach for them. Don't think we should expect them to change their fiscal approach and do anything sentimental because of the WS.
ReplyDeleteThey built a competitive team for most of the years in 2012-2019 and probably even think that user error and luck cost them deeper runs in '12, '14, '16 and '17. They are probably fine with maintaining fiscal discipline and gambling that they will get another one in the next decade.
Two kinds of winners in the world - those that win a championship and immediately want another (Tom Brady, Nick Saban, Bill Belichik et al) and then there are those that take a chill pill and enjoy the high (pretty much everyone else. The Lerners are likely the latter.
Given that the Nationals run a top-5 payroll, if the Lerners did sell the team, there's a roughly 83% chance that whomever bought the franchise would slash payroll even lower.
ReplyDeleteThe plain fact is that thirty MLB owners got together and instituted the luxury tax as a soft salary cap. We can go on and on about how the penalties (especially when reset) are really small or whatever, but the cap exists for a reason and that reason is to provide a talking point for twenty-eight billionaires and two (or more; I know Rogers and Liberty Media off the top of my head) corporations to draw a line in the sand and not get too frisky competing with each other. (And admittedly, the days when George Steinbrenner would pay half his infield more than some franchises paid their entire team were not good for baseball, either...unless you were a Yankees fan, of course.) Everybody in the room knew what they were doing when the CBA was signed, and wanting it to be different is an exercise in pointless futility. Honestly, as Nationals fans we should count our blessings that Ted was willing to spend at the high end, whether to win himself a championship or whatever other reason, rather than being Bob Nutting or Jeffrey Loria (...and as a lifetime Expo fans, believe you me that I remember what it was like being owned by Loria).
Frankly, I think the reasons for the Lerners are a little bit each of columns A, B, and C, plus a little bit of posturing for Boras (of the "look, guys, we know you want to come back and we want to pay you, but you've gotta work with me here a little").
It still sucks from the perspective of us fans, of course. "Rich guy won't spend money that's a drop in the bucket to him" is never going to sound nice.
For some good news, Howie's back at 1/$6.25M. Interestingly, it was reported in MLBTradeRumors that he had received multiple two-year offers but turned them down to come back to the Nats. Mind you, we don't know the dollars involved (2/$8M, for example, you can see why he'd turn it down), but it's still positive that he feels good about the team and their treatment of him. One thing I can't help but remember was how Howie pointed out during the season that he appreciated how Davey was handling him, making sure he was well-rested since, after all, he was 36, not 26, and how that contributed heavily to his having as good a season as he did. I assume the Nats will want him to play some 1B, some 2B, maybe a bit of 3B and corner OF, and give us another 350-400 PAs of professional hitting.
One thing to note about Howie's contract is that I think this means Zimm is destined to be playing a lot more golf. Sentimentally I want to see the Nats sign him, but I know realistically that that's just not a smart move baseball/business wise.
ReplyDelete@cautiously Pessimistic with 26 men on the roster and Howie's ability to play 5 positions badly, there's still room for a righty who can mash lefties either at first or on the bench. I agree that Howie's return might (and should) be the end of Zimm's days starting even close to half the time at first.
ReplyDeleteSaying you can't afford both basically outs the two free agents in competition. There's a new incentive to sign first. More interestingly, since boras represents both, it sets up a tangle of conflict of interest claims. Boras might have to tighten his firewall between players as a legal defensive measure.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's not my money, as a fan, if Lerner's are calling spending, abore or below luxury tax, doesn't really matter, then I want the money spent wisely. And there are definitely numbers that would be bad ideas. Strasbourg is not scherzer. And the Nats/Rizzo aren't as clueless as Colorado. Paying $33m for Rendon's age 38 season would be a mistake in my opinion.
Finally, the Nats have an option I don't see mentioned. They can spend money by taking another team's bad contract paired with a better player without having to send anything from the empty farm. Free agents aren't the only way to patch these big new holes.
The bad contract option is very much there Billy, I've erased a lot of posts about that on websites because it's just so speculative. But if they don't have Strasburg, for instance, how much would it take to get David Price and some salary relief instead?
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would an ownership group unwilling to sign their own WS hero home grown free agents to a big contract be more comfortable taking on a bad big contract from elsewhere? The Nats have never done this in their history and won’t now. Non starter.
DeleteI think the Lerners are comfortable with a modest amount of success and know that a repeat of winning the WS is a tough thing to do even for the best teams, so the marginal gains to the odds of winning another title per dollar spent may be small. My fear is they are underestimating what it takes to stay generally competitive since the division rivals are making moves to improve. They also appear to be taking away only part of the lesson from their past moves, that it's okay to let a major piece walk if you make improvements elsewhere (e.g. Bryce leaves, Corbin comes in).
ReplyDeleteWhile I think it's possible that the rotation can have its typical excellent 1-3 with Max, Corbin, and Sanchez, it is unlikely for both Max to stays healthy the entire year and Sanchez to stay in post-ASB form the entire year. With Strasburg, we saw that they only needed half a year of good Sanchez and could afford a few missed starts from Max. Without Strasburg or a capable replacement, it is harder to get away with that.
Replacing Rendon is trickier. There are few good infielders out there. Kendrick can't play every day, let alone play three positions simultaneously every day. He was and likely is the ultimate super-sub, and I am a member of the Howie Fan Club, but he doesn't answer any big questions about the roster. Opponents can either take their chances walking Soto and pitching to Kendrick or pitch around both Soto and Kendrick knowing there is minimal damage the bottom of the lineup can do. It's being generous to say he doesn't help much on defense. The organization knows better than I do about Kieboom, so I hope that their faith in him is sincere and not a way to placate fans while not paying for FA.
That said, the other characteristic of this ownership/GM regime is unexpected signings and trades. There's still room to be pleasantly surprised between now and April.
There is no replacement for Rendon. And this is a team that depended on his offense and that you will see collapse as teams stop throwing Soto anything to hit. they need Rendon way more then strasburg IMO. And it’s not like strasburg isn’t super important. It’s just that without Rendon (or offensive re-enforcements that would cost similar amounts) I honestly do not believe they have a terribly decent chance to make the playoffs next year.
DeleteBetts is a replacement for Rendon. And Boston has plenty of crappy contracts to send along with Betts so all they ask in exchange is Stevenson or something.
DeleteIt cracks me up that anyone expects their club's owner to just pay whatever for a puncher's chance to win. These guys won't even pay for the workplace, never mind the workers. Salaries have been flat for two years with no new Marvin Miller in sight.
ReplyDeleteI mean that’s exactly what the Lerners have done since 2011. Pay whatever they needed for a punchers chance. So continue cracking up but some owners do it.
DeleteOkay, so at this point the roster seems to be:
ReplyDelete1B - ?
2B - Kieboom
SS - Turner
3B - ?
LF - Soto
CF - Robles
RF - Eaton
C - Suzuki/Gomes
Bench - Gomes/Suzuki (C), Kendrick (IF/OF), Difo (IF), Taylor (OF), Stevenson (OF)
(I'm putting Kendrick with the bench group as I envision his use similar to '19 as a supersub type, lots of 1B/2B with some 3B/LF/RF/DH appearances, in the 350-400 PA range.)
SP - Scherzer, Corbin, Sanchez, Voth, Ross
RP - Doolittle, Rainey, Suero, Elias, Strickland, Fedde
That leaves four slots open outright on the 26-man roster (1B, 3B, and two RP). In addition, it leaves several question marks: obviously the Strasburg-sized gap in the rotation (I'm fine with the better of Voth and Ross as SP5, with the other one in Fresno ready to step in as SP6, with Fedde as long man/emergency starter on the ML roster, but both Voth AND Ross in the rotation is a big "hope and pray" scenario), having both Taylor and Stevenson as reserve outfielders instead of replacing one with a better bat, whether we can do better than Difo for an IF reserve (even if it's a 2B-3B-only guy and sliding Kieboom over is the backup plan for Turner), and the fact that the bullpen guys listed don't inspire a lot of confidence after Doo.
Lots of work yet to do for Rizzo!
I don't think Voth and Fedde have any options left.
ReplyDeleteAs a footnote to the above, Voth and Ross were both really good as starters in 2019. Excising their relief appearances, both put up 0.9 fWAR as starters, Voth in 8 starts and Ross in 9. Prorated out to 30 starts, that would be 3.4 fWAR for Voth and 3.0 for Ross, which is actually better than Sanchez's 2.5. I'm reasonably confident that at least one of those two guys can be counted on as a quality fifth starter. And while I'm not so confident that both of them can actually do so, it does at least mean that there's at least the potential for the dropoff from Stras to the roster as it stands only falls in the 2.5-ish win range.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Rendon is being replaced by Wilmer Difo and/or Jake Noll, based on the current roster situation. Both of whom were sub-replacement level in 2019, so the drop-off is somehow *more* than Rendon's seven wins.
Ergo, if Lerner is serious about signing only one guy, he needs to hand Boras the pen and have him write Rendon's contract now, 'cause losing Strasburg is a problem, but losing Rendon is a disaster and Donaldson is the only available player who can even approximate a solution.
this is exactly right. The people who say strasburg is more important to the Nats than rendon are just nuts. You will be left with literally a lineup with one single threat which can simply be pitched around. It would be calamitous for the Nats run scoring abilities. And even counting on Donaldson, whos been healthy one of the last 3 years, is a lot.
DeletePlayers not on rouds get worse as they age. Rendon is great, but he will decline like every other baseball player in his 30s.
Delete@blovy8 : Works for me if so. Voth as SP5, Ross working the Fresno shuttle, and I have Fedde earmarked for the pen.
ReplyDeleteI think you have mentioned in the past, Harper, that Tommy John surgery lasts something like eight years before the pitcher needs his elbow rebuilt again. Based on that stat, I was even nervous about the deal Straus was on. Seems like a real gamble to give him a 7 year contract at $30 Mil. I'd let the Yankees have him and go after Cole.
ReplyDelete@Anon. I don’t think the whole TJ repair lasts X years thing is a terribly scientific number. In any event, if the Nats aren’t willing to commit the dollars to Stras they’re not going to go after Cole.
ReplyDelete@Dezo. You can’t prorate performance like that. No projection system has either of those guys as that productive as starters. They’re both fringe-y starters and Ross (and Fedde) has never gotten through anything close to a full year without injury. The drop off from even a less healthy Stras year of say, 28 starts, 5 WAR, will be just that. 5 WAR. But I also think the Lerners will sign somebody like Keuchel to replace Stras if he is the one who leaves. If Rendon leaves.....way fewer options to replace much of his value. Which is why I think signing Rendon if u had to choose one is the incredibly obvious move. I love stras and wish he retired a nat, but a long term deal for him is also incredibly risky and a reasonable projection has him getting seriously hurt at least one during it IMO. Whereas I actually don’t see much risk at all in a Rendon deal. He’s precisely the kind of guy who will hit and hit and hit as he gets older. His skills are all bat to ball pitch recognition plate discipline hand eye coordination stuff, and he can move from 3rd to 1st base after first half of deal. That said, I am EXTREMELY confident that whoever signs tendon....it’s going to be something like 5 years 200 mil. Or 4 years 170 mil. I don’t think that guy wants a long term deal into late 30s. That’s why I think dodgers are all over this. Maybe rangers but I like dodgers bc they offered that type of short term high AAV deal to Harper. And this is the exactly the type of deal the Lerners would NEVER give, with lots of cash up front loaded. So that’s my prediction. 5 year deal, record breaking AAV, Dodgers.
@Bx I agree. Bryce to Philly was one thing. Rendon is a different level. He should have been World Series MVP. He was the Nats regular season and playoff MVP for sure. What was his batting line, in the 7th inning or later in the playoffs? He's a fantastic all around player, a potential hall of famer, totally clutch, smart enough to not take baseball too seriously and who SHOULD be the face of the franchise for the rest of his career. And the Lerners are gonna let him walk (and maybe become a freaking Dodger) because they're too cheap--I mean, oh sorry, pardon me, because they prefer to structure their deals in a way that's really more beneficial to the players in the long run but the players are too dumb to realize it so it's really their fault for leaving. There, I think I have it right.
ReplyDeleteAt what price? You have someone earlier suggesting $42.5 million per year. I love Rendon. I gold-plated his two bags bobble head. But signing him for more than maybe $33 on a short term deal and $30 on a 7ish year deal will make the Nats less fun to watch. This was his best year. He will never again have this year (ok, maybe one more, but guaranteed never twice). Pay him like the declining player he is or let some other team deal with the end of the contract.
DeleteWe can call them cheap when they officially don't resign them. Until them, parlor games, enjoy the WS.
ReplyDelete@billyhacker. Except this wasn’t his best year. It was his best offensive year. He has been a 6-7 WAR player 4 times now. 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019. He had his best numbers this year because everybody did.
ReplyDeleteBut here’s my main objection to @billyhacker’s general attitude towards free agents and their market values. Anthony Rendon, a 5-7 WAR player, is worth 40 million dollars of value a year right now. In a few years, he will (this is all speculation) be worth more like 3-4 WAR) and closer to 20 mil in value. And then in a few more he will be a slightly above average player worth about 15 mil a year. But the problem with your constant “Do you want to be paying person X 30 million dollars at age 36?!?” objections is that if you following this logic, the Nats will sign zero impact players through free agency. You then are relying I assume on trades and the draft. Well the Nats haven’t drafted anybody impactful in a decade (that has benefited their team), and to make trades you need a prospects which we basically don’t have. So your choices are (1) sign some contracts where you either get surplus value first few years and get killed the last couple years, (2) sign high AAV short term contracts that soak up lots of payroll but get you stars that don’t become albatrosses because they’re 4-5 year deals, like what Rendon wants, or (3) sign no impact players and try to cobble together a contender with fairly mediocre players that you will nevertheless pay more money than they are worth (like Brian Dozier types, etc., and you will occasionally get crazy lucky with Howie Kendricks....and by “crazy lucky” I mean one of the years you get zero value out of him.)
The two biggest problems with this approach to premium free agents—lets call it the The Back End Terrified Me approach—- IMO is (1) you are buying into the utter car salesman garbage being sold by ownership. They don’t need to stay under some random payroll number. They don’t need to stay under the salary cap. It’s all nonsense. No fan should ever be cheering their owner not spending money. Want to know why? Because you never know when they’ll actually spend money again.
(2) the second reason is, again, signing free agents is—unless you’re emerging from a rebuild with a young nucleus like the Astros or cubs—the single way to win a title! Even those two had to sign “scary back end!!!!” deals with verlander and Lester. Of course bad contracts exist. But don’t be a one size fits all fool about it. Some FA contracts work out great. Any moron could’ve told you that signing fatty Miguel Cabrera until he was 40 years old when the guy was already grossly overrated due to the sport’s invincible bias towards offense over other skills was a hideous mistake. Or extending Chris Sale two years ago right after the guy had had elbow trouble and was wearing down. But sometimes it makes sense. Anthony Rendon is as close to an archetype you’d draw up in a lab of a dude who will age well you’re gonna find. Aside from injuries, why is Anthony Rendon going to stop putting his barrel on the ball and having fielding balls at 3B the next few years? It’s entirely possible he has a Beltré like career and keeps bouncing out .400/.500 years and solid defense through his mid to late 30s. But guess what. The guy doesn’t want a long deal. He wants like 4-5 years. There’s virtually no risk in such an arrangement. You would be paying him when there’s nothing on the books outside of the end of Corbin’s deal. Even soto wouldn’t be up yet.
I just honestly don’t understand what we’re saving money for during THAT 5 year timeline. Turner? If necessary let him walk if it means keeping Rendon who is twice the player. Other than that....we have no money tied up in position players. None.
Now....Strasburg. There I see the possibility of a bad deal where it maybe helps the Nats have a chance for a year or maybe two but could torpedo them for the next 5. That’s a real risk. And given the rest of the roster, I understand letting stras go if he wants more money.
trade for Blake Snell
ReplyDeleteIn a world where both Stras and Tony walk, I think there are some interesting scenarios.
ReplyDeleteTake a stab at Mad-Bum to fill out the rotation.
Then clean house no the remaining best relievers on the market
Lock up Trea and Soto under long-term, discounted arrangements
Donaldson for 3rd
Sign Didi, move him to 2nd (or 3rd if you miss Donaldson)?
I think in this world I'd still rather pay for Stras.
First, sign Rendon. If he really wants 5 years at 40M give it to him. If he wants Arenado money, give it to him. The window can stay open a couple more years if things break right, so spend the money now! And I'm OK with Rendon going to TX or out West if it has to go down that way, but god no please not the Phillies! WTF.
ReplyDeleteIf Rendon goes, please let's lock up Soto now and get some FA years at a discount (see Acuna, Jr: ATL). Losing homegrown stars who hit FA is no fun... and Lerners need to try a different approach to keeping them.
FG article on TTB vs. SS:
ReplyDeletehttps://blogs.fangraphs.com/you-pick-anthony-rendon-or-stephen-strasburg/
Stras is back!!!
ReplyDeleteStrasburg is back at 7/245.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy he's back but that's a hell of a lot of money, and a lot of years at that money for a 31 year old pitcher. (I'm assuming self-imposed budgetary restraints here).
Does this mean no Rendon? If Rendon would have signed for that amount, but the Nats won't do both, then I fear they picked the wrong guy. We'll see.......
Jon Heyman tweets that the deal is done and Strasburg is a National once again. Apparently 7/$245M with full no-trade.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings. On the one hand, we have just added a five-win pitcher to our roster, moreover one who has been a major part of our team since 2012 and who has been an absolute rock in the postseason his whole career. We bring back our entire rotation from last year which was easily Top 3 in all of MLB, arguably #1 before the Astros traded for Greinke.
On the other hand, this also suggests that Rendon is unlikely to remain a National. Maybe there's still something going to happen (again, we don't know the terms of Strasburg's deal), but if not, Rizzo needs to move fast to plug that huge hole in our lineup (Donaldson? Trade?). Likewise, $35M/year is a huge bite out of the payroll (offset somewhat because Max will be off the books in 2022, but still) and Stras has never been Mr. Healthy even above and beyond the general health issues of pitchers.
Stras, I think, was always the more likely to remain. The rare Boras client to voluntarily sign an extension before FA, he's clearly happy in Washington and part of this organization. All I have to say is, I hope that whatever extension he signed continues this franchise's history in signing FA pitchers to long contracts and having it actually work out. I'd love to be sitting here five years from now and watching Rizzo be as smug about Stras's deal as he deserves to be about Max's.
Lastly, I think this turns either Ross or Voth into a trade chip. Fedde seems the more likely to become a RP, but if R/V can't be stashed in AAA to be SP6, whichever one doesn't break camp as SP5 isn't giving the team full value.
7/$245 seems like an overpay. Baffled at this one, but happy that SS is back. Major risk, but hopefully last year showed that he has elite stuff even without an upper 90s heater. I remember there was a FG article during the playoffs suggesting a way that Stras could even improve on what he was doing in the playoffs, which was QUITE the performance. Here's the article:
ReplyDeletehttps://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-friendly-suggestion-for-stephen-strasburg-who-is-already-very-good/
If you don't want to read it, the author suggests that SS elevate his two-seamer more, so it plays better off the curve.
I think this likely goes back to what Mark Lerner said prior to his can't afford both interview. They want Rendon to stay. They can't afford to pay him $40/year for five years so he can get a higher AAV on a shorter deal. I could be wrong but I think he'll come back. Nothing like trying to win a World Series again. Plus Strasburg was already on the books for $25 million last year.
ReplyDeleteI feel like that number is what he would've gotten on the open market, so yes it's not cheap, but he earned it...WS MVP. My big concern (of course) is durability. He's getting older so when is that TJ gonna start to wear down, especially considering he was pitching full throttle late into October for the first time in his career.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, very happy he's back, especially with Max now getting older too. Keeping Stras keeps the rotation elite, losing him would've been bad news.
I hope this doesn't mean that Rendon is definitely gone either.
Yeah. I think we're all seeing this pretty similarly.
ReplyDeleteI love Stras and am thrilled to keep watching him. And if he has a 80th percentile outcome for the rest of his career and gets us another Nats cap in Cooperstown (after Max), this will be money well spent. Also, if he keeps adding to his postseason legend.
But I was thinking 6/180 - 7/210 as the range here. Max was a year younger, had won a Cy Young and on his first elbow when he got 7/210. 7/245 is even a lot higher than that.
You also have to figure 7/245 would have gotten Rendon too. And I think rest-of-career Rendon has a higher floor with about almost as much upside as rest-of-career Strasburg.
So I'm happy he's coming back, and I'm happy that the Lerners aren't resting on their championship and dialing back to a $160 million revenue number -- which I felt was a real risk and even a likelihood if we missed out on both Stras and Rendon. But I also think it's less than 50/50 that the team will get enough value on the field from this signing.
Still, good for Stras. I'm happy for him, however it ends up.
Pleasantly, Dan Szymborski of Fangraphs has a pretty positive take on this deal. Also, ZiPS has nice things to say about Strasburg's projections: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/instagraphs/strasburg-returns-to-dc/
ReplyDeleteDonaldson is said to likely be looking for a 4 year deal. The Nats need to sign Rendon or swing a deal for someone who can replace his bat to some extent at 2B or 1B. They most likely made about $50M from the World Series run and have money coming off the books over the next two years so they can afford it, regardless of what Lerner says.
ReplyDeleteI hope the Nats have a plan to sign Rendon. While I'm thrilled that Stras is coming back, I think Rendon has more value and much less risk. Don't you think Rendon would have taken 7/245 during the season? I'm more comfortable with the everyday player. Seems like Rendon is guaranteed to produce 30+ WAR over the next 7 years. Heck, he could do it in 5 or fewer years. Stras could blow out his arm at any time. And there's no way Stras will be throwing 94 in 4 or 5 years, let alone 7. Scherzer and Verlander are freaks of nature. Look what happened to Kershaw, Greinke, and Sale.
ReplyDelete@PotomacFan. Re Kershaw, Greinke Sale....Well Greinke has continued to be extremely good, just to be clear. Like top 15 starter in baseball good. Kershaw has also continued to be good. Sale blew out. We’ll see what he’s like when he gets back, but that guys delivery and body is not like strasburgs. Regarding Rendon 7/245.....it’s not clear to me he would take that.....I think Rendon is going to sign a short deal for like 40+ AAV.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody think either Didi Gregorius or Turner would play third base or second? I mean, outside of Rendon signing, that could something worth a look.
ReplyDelete@JDBrew. They’ll do what they need to. What I was actually thinking of the Nats looking at: How about Bryant? Grievance aside, that’s probably control of Bryant for 2 years. He would fit in beautifully behind Soto. I wonder if Kieboom+some more of farm would be enough for Bryant. I also to be clear am very compelled by dealing for Lindor and moving Turner to 2B and Kieboom to 3B. I think the Nats should definitely be looking into a blockbuster trade like this, given how their triumvirate of pitchers effectiveness really does crest over next couple years.
ReplyDeleteNats inquiring about Bryant probably means they know Rendon isn't coming back. SMH
ReplyDeleteAnother article from Fangraphs, this time from Craig Edwards, this one pointing out what a little back-of-the-envelope math from the ZiPS projection said: that Strasburg's 7/$245M deal...is actually about market value on a strict $/expected value basis, and that his historical comps (omitting, of course, the question of post-Tommy John, which is another unknown risk point) project well: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-nationals-couldnt-let-stephen-strasburg-leave/
ReplyDeleteThe number-crunching soulless robots are making me feel less nervous about this decision, that it's based on sound analytics rather than just warm fuzzies.
Now, about that whole Rendon matter...