Understand when we start this, you can't get a return for Soto that is equal to Soto. Soto isn't just a great player, he's a HoF player with a good chance of being an "inner circle" Hall of Fame player, the type that gets in first ballot with no doubts. That means even if you trade for a Hall of Famer you might not get an equal return*
But what would you ask for? Here's a general sense of how I read prospect lists. Top 20 = gonna make majors, likely good, possibly great, unlikely bust. Top 50 gonna make majors, likely decent, possibly good, small chance great, small chance bust. Top 100 probably makes majors, likely usable, possibly decent, small chance good, tiny chance great, possibly bust. Also relievers - they like to put good relievers in 50-100. Often the "small chance great" and "tiny chance great" is an age thing. A 18 yo surprises, ends up on the bottom of a Top 100 list then repeats performance and boom is a Top 20 guy. Or like Soto big surprise - Top 50 guy, repeat then in majors. So this isn't perfect it's general.
What I would want, looking at this Nats team, is two Top 20 prospect starting pitchers and one Top 50 players, a long with some random other pieces.This would be two pitchers likely to be decent major leaguers to add into a rotation with Gray and maybe one other guy in the minors now (Cavalli? Henry?) and a player likely to play and be something to add to Ruiz, Garcia and probably someone else (House? de La Rosa?). There's holes to fill sure but a #1 starter and a big time bat, which you should have the money for, and the team is looking pretty competitive.
See that's the thing. You can't replace Soto BUT if the Nats are garbage in 3+ spots (and they are) you can be better than you are with just Soto, by getting fixes for those spots. Soto may be like +8 by himself, but going from -1 to 2 in 4 spots is +12. Of course you gotta get that right AND you gotta assume they can't pay Soto and do that through free agency which obviously they can but fans and media and definitely the owners like to pretend they can't so whatever. Anyway that's a big ask that may end up with zero or one possible partner and they might not even be competitive, so you can scale it down to try to find partners.
Maybe two Top 20 and one Top 50 - no positional terms, or one Top 20 and two Top 50, or one Top 20 and one Top 50 and two Top 100s.
Who has that kind of prospect haul available? (I'll put what they max out at)
Blue Jays (20, two 50s) - It'd be one pitcher and a catcher - which is oddly what the Nats don't need. SS/3B guy is looking like a high K 3B, but the pitcher is a fast riser and pitcher is what I want most
Cardinals (10, 50, 100) - Put them on here because a 10 is better than a 20 so I could drop from a 50 to a 100 for that. Get a possible star bat in Jordan Walker, but Liberatore the pitcher looks like he needs major league work
Dodgers (10, 20, two 50s, two 100s) - Best guy is a catcher, but can give a Top 20 pitcher and a Top 100 pitcher that looks decent. Or the pick of some other guys. Deep system
Giants (10, 20, 50) - I can't see them doing it. One looking good pitcher around 20 and a great young bat in the 10s. Third guy might be busting down fast though
Guardians (10, 50, SIX 100s) - that's a lot of low level depth. I won't talk about it though - they aren't dealing
Mets (10, 20, 50, 100) - no pitchers, top guy is a catcher (what's up with these catchers?) The Nats could solidify multiple positions but again - no pitchers.
Rangers (two 20s, two 50s, two 100s). Possible but I'll tell you right now - Jack Leiter has to be part of it for me. Their other pitchers aren't good enough.
Sox (10, 20, 50, 100) - This fits and it makes a nice Soto/Williams connection. And a SS that can play SS! Only one pitcher though and it's the 50. GIVE ME PITCHERS
Yankees (10, two 50s, two 100s) - again pitcher isn't great, in the 100s. But the Yanks have TWO SSs that can play SS so they won't even feel losing that
Who doesn't?
Astros (100) - system is tapped out
Braves (-) - same
Brewers (three 50s) - all OFs - which is interesting but Nats need at least one pitcher
Mariners (20, three 100s) - Have the top guy in Marte but he doesn't look as good ditto the barely in 100s pitcher
Padres (20, 50, 100) - not enough unless you add a current major leaguer like Gore
Phillies (two 50s, 100) - two 50s pitchers is... interesting? But not enough especially because the last guys is a C. the Top 100 is 1/3rd catcher apparently
Rays (two 50s, 100) - Huh, figured a deeper list but they gotta do something off-plan for me to give up Soto. Maybe they have like a bunch 100-200 where they can throw in like 4-5 of those.
Twins (50) - not enough
White Sox (100) - reallly not enough. see Braves, Astros
Now this assumes no current major leaguers - only prospects. But there aren't a ton of young guys new to the majors good enough to want but not good enough to be helping this good team right now, so no big deal. You'll notice there are no two Top 20 pitchers on the same team. That was a stretch. There are multiple pitchers on the same team other than the Dodgers but they are on non-contending teams (Orioles, Reds, Marlins) so that makes a trade unlikely.
So by default almost - to get the two best pitchers - I lean toward the Dodgers. They also could give you the best set of prospects with the best pitchers. If you want just the best prospects - maybe the Red Sox, if they give you their two best. The best individual players? The Mets, Blue Jays, or Cardinals probably. The Mets and Jays present a C issue - their best guys are C that can play C. But Ruiz plays a solid C too. Trade Ruiz then?
Anyway - that's the setting we're at in terms of prospects. Plenty of teams that can give what would be a reasonable, but not even, return. But will they? And will the Nats accept?
*yeah there are things like getting value at a cheap contract
23 comments:
Good stuff, Harper. I have always had the unpopular opinion of moving Soto for the reasons you outlined. This make complete sense and I think the Nats have to do it. Do you think they do it before this trade deadline though? I am guessing Soto would have more value for a contender to potentially use him three playoffs rather than an offseason trade and two playoffs.
Beyond how many top 10 or 20 or 100 prospects Soto would bring in return is an equally important question. What do the Nats do when they get them?
The Nats' scouting and player development program is appallingly inadequate. When the team added this past winter about 20 people to the organization (nutritionist, mental performance coach, biomechanical technicians, positional coaches, scouts, etc), the team was playing catch-up. Many organizations have one of these for each team, not merely one for an entire organization.
The crucible for cutting edge player development is the Dominican Republic. 18 organizations have 2 teams in the Summer League and their complexes are eye-popping. Not only do their facilities rival those of the big leagues, but their soft-skill support includes educators and tutors. Images of some of the complexes are available on the internet (Dodgers, Yankees, Orioles, Pirates, for example). If you search for the Nats' complex, you know what you see? Pictures of Juan Soto!
So what can you hope to expect with prospects, highly rated or not, when they fall into the Nats' player development system? How much progress can one realistically expect from Elijah Green?
Soto, like Athena from Zeus's head (the rare benefit of a classical arts education!), sprang up fully-formed. The Nats' player development
program had minimal effect on his growth.
I often wonder when a player fails: Did the player fail the organization? Or did the organization fail the player?
@SM complete agreement. Those quotes by Voth a couple weeks back about the video work he was doing with O's coaches being new to him was absolutely stunning. How the f*** can you run a major league org, have a pitcher that struggles with mechanics, and NOT DO VIDEO WORK. It's bonkers. You have to think that the players that make it to the majors for the Nats are doing so in spite of the org, not because of it. Think of all the highly touted prospects that ended up being mediocre or worse? Robles, Kieboom, Giolito (until he was traded and fixed), MAT, Cole, Fedde. All at one point were top 50 or higher
I think the Nats could pair someone (a positive someone like Bell) with Soto to literally swap an MLB starter with more control for Bell and another for Soto. Cardinals have too many outfielders and they are good and young. Surely they would give one up? Hard for me to see just prospects getting it done. Surely the Nats think they will be back competing in 5 years.
Despite this seemingly dismal analysis of available trade packages, 1/ I think the Nats will do better than projected here (Nat's desperation to make the trade will be more than offset by the number of teams competing to get Soto), 2/ even if they are still mostly losing, the Nats need to do something to become interesting now and competitive soon.
I would rather have one near/major leaguer, a couple of very high prospects, and a couple of lesser "could be good/great maybe" players TO ROOT FOR, than 1 HOF'er who can't, by himself, replace 5 awful "have no future" position players and a pitching rotation with only one player with any probable long-term success. Playing the existing kids (Garcia, Ruiz, Grey, Thomas, Stevenson, Robles, maybe Riley Adams at first) plus accelerating some minor leaguers plus playing whoever comes in for Soto and Bell that is MLB ready or nearly so....may not produce more wins for now, but it will bring some much-needed hope.
The above is so important for the franchise that I have even softened on the possible inclusion of Corbin. One less high-prospect is bad....but maybe its okay if it allows us to add three younger free agents rather than two. For example, I would be fine if Corbin goes and that money is applied toward bring Bell back this winter.
this is a babe ruth and ted williams (josh gibson/satchel paige) hypothetical scenario; i believe there are few teams that are serious enough, rich enough , and care enuff about their asset, that they will deplete their farm system and 1 or 2 good mlb players to get the deal done. Long vision almost always wins the race. CPA's are not ideal stewards of sport franchises (particularly) in a top 10 market. It has to be hard, cold, and calculated that you as owner will probably lose money for the 1st 10 yrs and then throw in MASN another situation that doubles the pain. It's hard. But it's your child.
Play the game! You can afford it. Your from here! You don't get a past just b/c you have jewelry now. Soto is apart of your legacy. He's that generationally impactful. It will not be forgotten.
Anonymous 7:11 p.m. We can agree to disagree. Stars plus deep pockets guarantees nothing in a game where no one person is good enough to carry the rest of the team. I see no future for the Nats as the second-coming of the LA Angels or even the Yankees of the last dozen years who haven't been to the WS. A great farm system helps and good luck regarding injuries is essential. The last 4 years would look a lot different if: 1/ the pandemic hadn't ruined our opportunity to really celebrate our World Series win and 2/ Strasburg stayed healthy.
I like Soto and would be delighted if he stayed a long time. But there are several risks to relying so heavily on him: 1/ he may not be the reincarnation of Ted Williams, 2/ he could be injured often or permanently 3/ we get nothing for him now and he leaves in 2 years. I think Rizzo will get his 4 or 5 Major league or major league ready players. That will give us fresh faces for us (and our kids) to root for....and eventually a team capable of winning a series, not just a stray game here or there.
You can cite the Angels as a cautionary tale but the Yankees are 2nd behind LAD with 920 wins since 2012. (We're still 7th, by the way, even after the disaster of the last couple years.)
I can't see how any fan wouldn't take that in a heartbeat even if we knew we'd never make a WS, which of course we/they don't. The Yankees are relevant every year. You get to watch pretty good or better baseball every year, and you get to keep caring into September and October most years. What more do you want? We even just won a world series so we won't have to deal with WS-drought bullshit or the like for a generation.
Now, maybe we're more likely to be a 90-win team with 4 or 5 prospects/young MLB talent instead of Soto. Say that ends up being 1 3-win, 3 2-win and 1 bust. That's more WAR than Soto, and at a lower cost (at least for the next 2-3 years, I'm not actually sure how it works late in arb. I think all those players would actually cost more than Soto at that point, but whatever.)
If that's the case you want to make, I get it but don't agree with it. 2-win players just aren't that hard to find. And I'm not sure why you think the underperformance and injury variance would skew against Soto. If anything, his game of generating value through patience-forward hitting is the most injury resilient skill I can think of and his track record of 4 seasons of excellent performance in the majors far exceeds that of anyone we'll get in return.
But we can't make Soto sign an extension. If he really won't, it's clear that the team is better off trading him. That said, there's no reason to downplay what we're giving up.
He *might not* be the reincarnation of Ted Williams? Yeah, exactly.
Anon 10:46 You make good points, but in the end they are dependent on Soto resigning with us. I am focused on value and risk, both of which are specific to the context that we are a terrible team with a 3 to 4 year rebuild ahead (with our current resources including Soto).
No matter how transcendent Soto is (Ted Williams reincarnation), he can't make that rebuild go much faster unless 1/ we have strong hitters behind him, 2/ we have 8 other decent position players and 3/ at least a half-dozen starting and relief pitchers who are better than anyone on the current roster not named Grey.
His maximum value right now is to teams that can use his talents in the 2022, 2023, and 2024 post-seasons. I believe Rizzo will get enough to reset the franchise and begin building toward a winning team much sooner--even if it is based on 1 or 2 stars (of lesser value than Soto) and several +2 wins players. I also assume Rizzo will not do a deal unless he is getting enough back to trigger a new era.
I agree the risk is low that Soto is injured or otherwise doesn't make good on the cost of his contract. But the risk to us is being irrelevant for 6 to 10 years, while we rebuild carrying a lot of dead money. I don't see DC having the patience of Pirate fans or Reds fans or even Baltimore fans.
@SG
I agree with you there. I prefer extending Soto over trading him (up to around $520M over 15 or so), but if Soto won't sign for the most ownership is willing to offer, then the team is best served by trading him.
And I agree that Rizzo will be able to get significant value and that it's perfectly possible to build a winner around several good but not great players. In fact, I think that's how most winners in baseball are constructed.
(I'm not as sure how important it is that he's traded this season vs during the offseason or next summer; I've heard baseball people make the case both ways. I certainly agree that, fundamentally, his value will never be higher than it is right now. But it's a high friction market and it wouldn't be stunning to see some daylight between his price and his value in either direction.)
But I think you and I are pretty much in agreement. I'm just sad about it. (About Soto leaving... not about you and I agreeing on some stuff.)
@Steven Grossman
Nats have been irrelevant for 2 1/2 years. Even if your Magic Mike fixes it in 3 to 4 years (he won't because he can't) with a Soto deal, there's your 6 years of irrelevance already.
Washington fans don't have the patience to wait 6 to 10 years? They're out of patience now.
I was projecting rebuild times from now, but if we are constructing an impatience index....then counting 2020 and 2021 makes sense. My projections (some analysis, mostly guesswork):
----Soto stays the next two years then signs elsewhere (Nats get a QO pick): Building through the draft will take until 2027 or 2028---thus 8 to 9 years of irrelevance; 5 years to go. Maybe take 2 years off of this (25/26) is we get a Steve Cohen type for the new owner. That's still 6 years of irrelevance.
---Soto signs 12 years/$440 million, no return on trades and no QO, but you have Soto: doesn't really change that timeline because we still need at least 5 more good position players and a half dozen better SP and relievers that need to come through the draft. Some acceleration of timeline if we get a deep-pocketed owner.
----We trade Soto this summer and receive a substantial package of MLB ready players and prospects that are less than 2 years from being ready: we start wining some games in 23, we are good in 24, and are capable of going to the play-offs in 25. Deep-pocketed owner might shave a year off of that and we are competitive in 24. We are irrelevant for at least 4 years, but getting better in year 3 and 4 (now).
So, no pretty pictures here at all, but real differences in when we are next competitive AND even bigger difference in when the team if broadly competent enough to be interesting. The antidote to impatience in hope. Trade Soto and there will be enough good young players for them to be interesting by next year and start generating hope. Also, the more controlled players you have, the eaiser it is to spend serious dollars in FA.
As to Magic Mike: he is a good trader but poor on player development. Hard to know how good/bad his drafts are because the player development is so bad.
Harper -- I think you're selling the return they get from soto short if they trade him this season. As I think everyone agrees, he's worth more than the returns you've listed. What I think you're missing is that the long period of control / long time period to listen to offers gives the nats more leverage, since they can be patient. If someone doesn't meet their price now, they can wait to the offseason and set almost as high of a price (as he will also be worth more than the offers you've listed this offseason). So in my book, there's a good chance he doesn't go at all, but if he goes, it will be for more.
@Matt I agree, if they don't get the world he's not going anywhere. They don't HAVE to do anything if they don't want to. Depending on where they are in the sale process incoming ownership might want to have a say as well.
They don't have to do anything, but I think it is certain that they will. Right now, Soto comes with 3 play-off shots, not two. All upgrades will cost prospects at trade deadline; this winter, teams will also be able to look at FA who only cost money.
The only reason this might not happen now is: 1/there is less interest than advertised (this seems unlikely but who knows because Rizzo and Boris both have an interest in stirring things up); 2/ Boras suddenly presents the Nats with a counter-offer (but why would he?); 3/ something has changed dramatically in the ownership negotiations.
Nats got nothing but QO pick for Harper. Nats got nothing but QO pick for Rendon. Nats are not going to let that happen with Soto. Nats got a lot for Turner (and Scherzer). If Nats think Soto won't sign (and they now have every reason to believe that), then they will trade Soto.
Initially I was opposed to a Soto trade, but now I support it (given an appropriate return). If we figure that Soto is a 6 - 8 WAR player, if we can get 6 - 8 WAR across 3 players we are roughly even. Now, of course, we lose a superstar, fan favorite, future HOF player. BUT, we get 3 players under team control (and much lower salaries), with LOTS OF $$$ remaining to sign two or more big name free agents. Even more $$$ will be available when Corbin's contract ends. (Strasburg is a longer term albatross, but not crippling.)
Nats got a lot for Turner and Scherzer?
I'm only opposed to a Soto trade to the extent that it's possible to extend him. I think we're all on the same page that holding him through 2.5 seasons with <1% playoff chances and getting a comp pick at the end of it is not a viable option.
What's changed for me is that I think the fact that there wasn't a counter to a reasonable, if team friendly, offer means that Soto doesn't want to stay -- or at least doesn't want to stay as much as he wants to maximize his lifetime earnings through free agency. That's the end of it, and it's fine. I'm not mad at Soto about it, but it means that the team pretty much has to trade him.
That said, it is kind of wild that we're talking about having cap room available in the future, as if there's anything better to do with cap room than sign a young future hall of famer to a lifetime contract. Or as if we aren't already $80M under the lowest level of the cap.
I have a ton of patience for a team that's trying to win. Good players get hurt, prospects underperform. You can't win every year. Other teams are trying too. I'm 100% fine with that.
But I need the team to be trying. Attaching Corbin to the deal is proof that their priority has nothing to do with winning, now or in the future. They'd rather pocket the money than improve the return for Soto.
I don't think it's as calculated and intentional as the Loria disaster in Miami, but it's a lot more like it than I saw coming.
@Anonymous. Yes, the Nats got a lot for Turner and Scherzer. And the Dodgers got a lot, too. Scherzer was a 37-year-old pending free agent. He wasn't coming back. Turner had one more year under contract. He wasn't coming back, and he wasn't going to help the Nats make the playoffs in 2022. In return, the Nats got a young, above-average major league starting catcher, with upside potential, and many years of team control, and a young, 3/4 starting pitcher, with upside potential, and many years of team control.
@PotomacFan
I know who they got. We just don't know if they will be good. Years of team control is hardly a selling point.
Years of control of Fedde, Voth, Kieboom and Seth Romero hasn't worked out. Why should years of control of former Dodger prospects
be different?
Ruiz wasn't even the Dodgers' top catching prospect. Gray may be a 3 or 4 in the rotation, not higher by consensus. It may not be fair, but their presence hasn't made the Nats a better team, either.
We won't have any idea if these two are good for at least 1, maybe 2 or more years. And by the way, they're both older than Soto.
I recommend some humility about projecting who becomes great, who becomes good, and who can't make the major leagues. I remember there was a long-time that Robles was our clear #1 prospect and Soto looked good but was a lesser talent. How did that turn out?
Top 30 prospects on a team switch around a lot, reflecting increasing experience, closeness to MLB-ready and who is showing more talent and who less. You can reasonably assume that a team's top five has been evaluated thoroughly. If Rizzo can grab 3 of a team's 5 top prospects and one young MLB'er, you will have the highest probability of a positive return. It will take a couple of years to know if Rizzo picked well, but the potential is there at the day they are traded to the Nats.
If Rizzo couldn't figure out who the best prospect in his own organization was (Robles vs Soto), what makes you think he can figure out who another team's top prospects are?
I was illustrating the limited predictive value of these ranking systems, while at the same time they are the best tool we have for measuring who's likely to be good. Unless I had some special insights into the people involved, I would always chose from teams 1-5 prospects rather then 6-10.
As to Robles and Soto, the whose best was reflected in Robles sitting above Soto in prospect ratings. It was Rizzo who wouldn't trade Soto in the face of fans saying: "Robles is a star in the making and we should fix other needs rather than hold on to Soto."
Post a Comment