The Nats went on a road trip. They played solid ball, caught some break, and against 3 .500ish teams the Nats went 6-3 raising their record to 34-49. They then promptly played some sloppy ball and lost the first two to the Reds at home.
For whatever reason the Nats are FAR better on the road than home. The 6-3 stretch brought them all the way up to 21-22 just a game under .500 away from home where as the 0-2 dropped their DC record to 13-29, similar to the home records of the two teams fighting for a place in the "worst teams ever" record books, the A's and the Royals. I can't explain it. Nats park holds no special dimensions that would work against the team. There isn't any heavy or awkward situation hanging over the team that would effect play at home. So it must be your fault. Sorry. Be better fans. Cheer harder.
The MLB draft (starts the 9th) and the trade deadline (Aug 1) is coming up and the stories are coming out. The draft ones aren't so pretty. Baseball America today noted the Nats are the WORST team when it comes to drafting hitters in the past decade. They didn't do pitchers but looking at the Nats roster and knowing the guys sent out into the baseball world I'm going to guess the Nats aren't first there to make up for it. For those prepared with the "Yes but the Nats draft so low!" excuse/reason the Astros were the best. The Dodgers were 3rd best.
The Nats though are now in "can't miss" range so if they happen to get the best hitter in the draft (Dylan Crews) it should work out. But even then recent top hitter picks include Spencer Torkleson, Joey Bart, the oft injured Royce Lewis, and Mickey Moniak. Of course the other two in this time frame were Swanson and Rutschman. You can be sure Crews will get to the majors, just not sure what he might be and that specifically might not be the Nats fault.
As for trades Barry talks about it today and wonders if they will trade Thomas (or Harvey or Finnegan), can they trade Corbin (or Smith), and if they would NOT trade Candelario (or Vargas). This goes to an little discussion this weekend about what does it mean to be in a rebuild and where are the Nats in it? The idea was started when talking about Candelario you wondered if they should sign him. He's good, plays a position the Nats need, and might be able to be grabbed for less money right now. But others thought you have to trade him not sign him because... ummm... rebuild?
And there comes the question. What is a rebuild and when does it turn into a try? In my mind the Nats are done with the big rebuild portion. They traded away some guys starting in 2018 and last year traded away the last big chip. Any trade right now is marginal in terms of what you could expect the impact would be. They've also identified four younger players who will be part of the team for the next few years in Ruiz*, Garcia*, Gray and Gore. You can throw in Thompson in this group as well as he might not be a lockdown reliever but could give some late inning stability for a while. Well right now all of these guys but Ruiz are slated to hit FA after 2027. The Nats are on a four year clock to get things done.
To me that means this off-season is the transition off-season. They can make some trades but they need to start bringing in guys that will be ready to step in immediately. If they don't they are hoping guys come up who can do this but to get that in time? Seems unlikely and they'd more likely find themselves under .500 staring at these guys hitting FA and looking to deal THEM and thus starting the cycle over again like we've seen with so many bottom dwelling teams over the years.
There is one way they can hold off on making NOW deals and that's to sign more of these guys long term like Ruiz. If you are looking at a 5-6+ year window with these players then you do have a couple more years to gather and evaluate talent before a push. But you have to make those extensions and you have to be right about them. Ruiz looks just passable right now. Are they going to gamble with some more?
The Nats are going to have to decide soon. Try now, Try later, or put it off and hope for everything to go right in development for a team that hasn't had nearly anything go right for a decade. Given they can blame the sale for anything I'm fearing the third choice will be the one made.
*these two have had a real rough couple of weeks though
12 comments:
As incisive a probe into the state of the Nats as I've seen anywhere.
A question, though: Have the Nats (Rizzo, really) even admitted they're in a full, raze-it-to-the-ground rebuild?
"Going for it" for the Nats (not the Dodgers or guardians), will just mean getting a WC and hoping to get lucky. So they need three good pitchers, three good relievers, maybe five hitters, and a ton of luck and timing.
Nats are in no position to be a perennial again with these players. Maybe in 2026...
Candelario seems too good to trade for not very much, they should try to extend him. He's having a similar year to what Rendon did before the homers went crazy.
I know that "cheer louder" comment was likely tongue-in-cheek, but the Nats' attendance has held up pretty well (20th overall) for a team that almost certainly has the worst record in MLB over the last four seasons and a simply turrible home record this year. Good job, fans.
On Candelario, I think that the Nats will certainly listen to offers but they can be somewhat choosy. The Nats have the option of making a QO. I don't think that he'd accept it - he turns 30 in November, and this is likely his only chance at a multiyear free agent deal. That would net the Nats a comp pick, which creates a floor in value for offers that they consider. But if he accepts a QO (~$20M), great! It might be a slight overpay, but it might not - he's already put up nearly 3 rWAR this season. And it would also only be a one year commitment, so the principle "no such thing as a one year overpay" would be relevant. Also he would give them a potential bridge to the Brady House era, while also allowing them to be patient with House (who only just turned 20).
"...you have to make those extensions and you have to be right about them."
How many extensions has Rizzo been right about? And how often has Rizzo
failed to extend to the detriment or yes, the benefit, of the club?
In response to "Anonymous" on extensions, the semi-belligerent questions assume a couple of things. For starters, that Rizzo can DICTATE an extension to a player.
For example, Harper, Soto and arguably Trea (those cheapskate LAD didn't extend Trea either, you may note) were not going to accept anything less than what THEY deemed their "full market value" as an extension. Harper's take on his value was over $400M ("Don't sell me short..."). The specific comps Boras referred to for Soto implied a value of around $600M (A-Rod deal for "set new record by" as well as Max Met deal AAV).
Bottom line: those guys were GOING to go free agency. Period. With very high belief in their own market value, the only way to (say) convince Harper he *wasn't* going to get $400+M was by actually going on the open market and not getting any such offers. Rather than wait around on Harper, Rizzo signed Corbin--and we won the 2019 WS. YMMV, but as for me I'm NOT giving that WS title back to see if we could get late Feb/Mar 2019 Harper to sign for a Phils-like contract.
Not only was Rendon likely to leave (so not sure how much credit to give Rizzo for "not extending" Rendon)--as it turns out, NOT extending Rendon was the right move. Bullet dodged.
Rizzo extended Zim (YMMV on value). Rizzo extended Stras once (and that worked out GREAT for the Nats--WS MVP!), then extended Stras again (which has been DISASTROUS for the Nats--bullet NOT dodged).
Rizzo "failed to extend" Jordan Zimmerman. Bullet dodged.
"Failed to extend" Ian Desmond. Bullet dodged (and while Desi did well on aggregate, he arguably didn't quite make up in total contract value what he turned DOWN from the Nats).
Extended Ruiz. Jury still out.
So yeah, Rizzo has missed on a couple of extensions. But he's been RIGHT on some too. Let's not kid ourselves that Rizzo has been a total disaster on extensions any more than we can credit him (yet) with Braves-like ability to get great players to sign remarkably team-friendly extensions.
And of course in the end it's at best silly to blame Rizzo when a PLAYER executes their hard-fought-for right to free agency. The Nats simply do NOT have a gun they can hold to a player's head and force them to sign. That's the entire MEANING of the term "free agency."
It’s an interesting point about Candelario. I’ve assumed they’ll trade him, but rentals don’t typically net as much these days (although saw that Nats are second in WAR at 3B, which is of course largely due to him, so maybe he brings back a decent prospect). Extending a guy at 29, who probably won’t be good when most of this team and its prospects start to peak, just seems a little tough to me. But it’s an interesting counter argument; to me it holds more water with Thomas, who’s still cheap. But again, if you can get a decent haul for him now it’s worth trading him and tanking one more season. Next year feels like it could be like 2011, transitioning to being closer to a playoff contender and finishing restocking to keep the team competitive for the next 7-8 years.
Hope losing the #1 in the new lottery doesn’t turn out to be incredibly bad luck, but both Skene and Crews (and the kid from Florida) seem about to as close to sure things at the top of the draft since Strasburg and Harper.
@Mike Condray
Questions were neither semi- nor even quasi-beligerent (though the response seemed to drift in that direction).
I'm a bit of a pessimist. The Nats are slowly heading in the right direction -- but "slowly" is the operative word. They'd have to see a lot of improvement in their young players, plus add some good FAs to even get to .500. Unfortunately, .500 isn't going to get them a wild card in the next several years, if ever, and I expect the Braves to handily win the Division for many years. But heck, look at Arizona. If we can develop the next Corbin Carroll and if Gray or Gore becomes Zac Gallen then maybe we'll have something. But I don't see any Corbin Carroll on the horizon.
Look at it this way - if the window cracks open in 2024 (say they are good enough for a WC race) and is fully open by 2025, would Candelario and Thomas no longer be good enough to make the team? I really doubt it -- I don't think Kieboom's ever going to pan out, and Brady House probably won't be ready. Thomas is pretty good, and will there be 3 fielders better than him on the roster in 13 months? I doubt it. So if either or both Candelario or Thomas will take a 3-4 year deal, great. Remember that the Nats had nearly a completely different cast in 2012 than they did in 2019. If you're going to make multi-year run, you'll need good guys at the start of it too.
I agree, Kevin. Victor Robles was their starting CF, and Adam Eaton was at 2B during the World Series. Not every player needs to be an all-star. Thomas is better than Robles and Candelario is probably better than Eaton. The Nats really only had three great position players in Soto, Turner and Rendon plus three great starting pitchers. But the supporting cast was decent.
Adam Eaton at 2B? Is this an alternate reality blog?
Post a Comment