The Nats have two of the most highly touted OF prospects in their system.
James Wood, received in the Soto trade, blossomed through the minors nearly exactly as one would hope culminating in a .353 / .463 / .595 line over 52 games in AAA last year. He deservedly got the call up earlier in 2024 and while he wasn't an immediate phenom he acquitted himself very nicely finishing the year with a .264 / .354 / .427 line. On a per game basis he was the 2nd best bat for the Nationals*. We must note he did have issues in the field, but not to the levels the Nats are already looking to move him.
Dylan Crews, drafted #2 overall in 2023, didn't impress like Wood. He rocked single A for a couple weeks, but initially struggled in AA, improved enough to get a call up to AAA then hit decently there. He got the usual rookie September call-up and looked like a rookie, but at least to start 2025 he should be playing in the OF. His defense looked good, if not the amazing defense promised, and he ran well as a bonus.
Presumed Plan :
Wood will start in left field. Crews will start in CF or RF depending.
Reasoning behind Presumed Plan :
Wood looked like a major league hitter already. He makes a lot of good hard contact. He runs well as seen on the basepaths so the assumption is he can learn to play a better LF where his instincts looked off. Certainly at 22 you don't want to already resign yourselves to playing him at 1B/DH
Crews looked like a major league fielder and baserunner, but of course a lot of guys do. His hitting was a little disappointing, as it has been in the minors, but he'll only be 23 next year and he's just a couple years out of college. It would be nice to give him a little more time in the minors but the Nats really want to see what they can do sooner rather than later, so they aren't waiting on the perfect moment. Crews CAN go now, so he's taking his shot in 2025.
My Take :
Wood has basically already proven himself. The question is not really if he will hit in the majors but how well will he hit and at what position will he do it from. The Nats would rather he play the OF than try to learn 1B or be forced to stick him at DH so he'll get his chances there probably for several years. His skill set suggests he should be good, but I'll remind everyone that said something similar about Juan Soto (though he's not nearly as athletic) that Soto didn't improve much. Chances of Wood being a good fielder are getting slim. The good news is that he doesn't have to be. If he can be average his youth will let him hold down the position for a long while AND the Nats have some very good fielding OFs. If they go something like Young / Crews in the other positions, Wood will be asked to do less.
As far as the bat goes - he has the power. He just has to get under the ball more. He hit 55% GBs last year which is fine if you are a slap hitter. Wood's legs and just how hard he hits the balls means a lot of hits from those but everyone is hoping he turns more of those singles into doubles and doubles into homers. He does strike out a lot but that's modern baseball. That's something to keep an eye on this year. If teams can exploit that, but it's something to note, not worry about.
Crews is a bit more of a question. The guy can play CF and can run and so he's got inherent value beyond the plate. That was good in 2024 because he didn't hit very well. Given his brief minor league history you have to wonder if he is going to be special or not. It should be fine if he isn't, but the Nats (and fans) were clearly hoping for special. Of course there is still time for that and some of his peripherals suggest the great hitter is in there. His contact and eye are both good and he also could hit a lot fewer GBs (56%) which would translate into more power... probably. Crews didn't barrel the ball as you'd like and we're going on a year and a half of "where's the pop"
It sounds like I'm down but I'm not. Crews is a highly touted prospect developing on a normal pace. He might be great still. He might also still miss, though not in a "terrible never make the majors" sort of way. That the Nats are looking at him in 2025 and it's only a little bit of a stretch is good. He only looks bad in comparison with guys like Wood and Langford, who make it look easy. Compared to most other drafted hitters he's well ahead. That's why he's a highly touted prospect.
I'm not exactly sure why he had to come up when he did. But if their plan is to get a full picture of the state of the team by the end of 2025, I can see it. You'd want Crews to play a bulk of 2025 in the majors. Might as well let him get his feet wet first. And what's the alternative? Another 1 year FA to try to flip? Garrett and Young and see what happens? Eh. I can't really complain here.
Tomorrow starts today. The Nats future is now.
*Behind Jesse Winker
15 comments:
In Crews' favor is that he looked pretty ordinary for the first 6-8 weeks at AA and AAA as well as MLB, and at the first two stops he got the hang of them and hit pretty well afterwards. So we'll see. He already hits better than Young, so he'd be good in CF if they get a big bat to play RF.
Crews also got some rough BAPIP luck, with an xwOBA 40 points higher than his wOBA. He probably deserved a wRC+ of 110 last year, and as Kevin points out, he's shown a history of starting slow and adjusting to each level.
I get why Harper wants to draw the distinction between him and Wood - who I agree has already proven himself in a way that Crews hasn't - but I think he slightly overstates the downside risk of Crews. I'm very much not worried about him clearing the 2 WAR/600 bar and being a useful regular. The open question is by how much.
I'm really eager to see if Stone Garrett and Alex Call can stay healthy. They're 28 and 29, so probably not more than a couple peak years left, but they put up some pretty good numbers. Wood/Crews/Garrett with Call and Young on the bench are pretty good. Just get Soto and an innings-eater and I'm feeling pretty good about 2025.
In a full season Langford was really good, but his start was pretty rough. I selected this because it corresponds to his April and May stats (so it was easy to compile), and it happens to be very close to the number of plate appearances that Crews has so far. Langford's slash line in his first 139 plate appearances: 222/288/286. Crews slash line in his first 132 plate appearances: 218/288/353. Langford went on to have a great June. Then bad July and August, and a great September. The point is 132 plate appearances is nothing. I am not at all worried about Crews's future.
One more thought re Wood's defense -- for next year, I 100% agree that you need to give him 1000 innings in LF and see if he can improve, but if he doesn't - and it's very possible that instincts can't be taught and he won't - I think that will be the time to move him to 1B if he can play it, and DH otherwise.
There's just no reason to keep someone like Call on the bench and squeeze Yepez's or Chapparo's bat into the lineup, when he provides basically the same offensive production and would improve the defense.
do you mean Young?
I have Young in CF either way.
I’m happy to reevaluate when we see the crop of FAs, but I think the current OF plan is pretty clearly Wood/Young/Crews with Call as OF4. If Wood is no better after 1000 more innings, I think he needs to switch positions even if the next best outfielder on the roster is just Alex Call.
Neither am I though I'm fine if Crews ends up "good bat with very good D and baserunning". Two things Langford has over Crews (1) he absolutely ran over the minor league competition. This is the same reason I look at Wood and go "Ok what's next bc you've shown more". Yes its limited (for both Wood and Langford) but it's there and it's not for Crews. (2) Langford has done it. It's done. It's not speculation if he can put up a great month in the majors. Now it's just figuring out if he's that good, or if the bad months mean he's somewhere in between.
You could say Crews "advantage" is he can become better in fewer major league at bats. Langfords first 5 months are in the bag, Crews only has a month. But that's just bragging rights. Functionally they are both in the majors now (and basically the same age) so what matters is what they are doing at this moment, not who did it faster in their career.
Now for the TEAM that is an advantage because Crews does (probably) have one more year of eligibility since he'll still be a rookie next year.
I agree that that OF looks workable, especially for a "what's going to happen" year where other problems are addressed. I'm not at all sold on Call but we've concluded Young's superior D is probably real and I've always liked Garrett's bat
I'd also bet on him clearly that bar. He probably only has to be average with the bat to do that. Really Crews is a question about what else the Nats have to do. If he blossoms into a very good hitter then they can spend more money on pitching than if he's a merely slightly above average one.
SMS, you raise a good point about Young. If we believe the glove is real, which it has been in both 2023's tiny sample and 2024's full year, then in an abstract sense he's really no less valuable than, say, Anthony Santander (who's only had one season in his career, 2024, more valuable by fWAR than Young's 2024). Wood/Crews/Soto is a better outfield than Wood/Young/Crews. I'm not sure Wood/Crews/Santander would be. (Of course, if you don't believe in Wood's defense *at all* for whatever reason, Wood at DH with Crews/Young/Santander would be a different story.)
But yes, 1B/DH seems to be the place to add skilled bats to the lineup. (Also 3B, but there's a real dearth of possible talent out there to actually do that.) Replacing a zero-value slot with a three-win power hitter makes much more sense than replacing a two-win defender with a three-win power hitter.
Looks like Soto might sign before the Winter meetings, at the earliest. Any concerns here that the Nats have not been mentioned once as a possible suitor? I’ve read DC blogs that hope the Nats bring him back, but no actual confirmed interest from Rizzo. Probably just a negotiation tactic to wait and see what the offers from NYM, NYY, etc look like. Just saying I would very disappointed if the Nats didn’t even inquire with Soto/Boras. Really can’t do another year like last year with more rentals…
Starting to look like the Nats are taking themselves out of the running altogether. I have a feeling that the "plan" will be to field an 80-win team on the cheap, maybe squeak into the wildcard once or twice in the next 5 years, and declare victory while claiming "baseball too hard."
Yes, this is my fear. Haven’t seen anything other than some interest in Alex Bergman (please God, no). Nats just sent Finnegan packing—which I’m fine with but it does open another hole on the roster.
I have a sinking feeling that Ted was the spender in the Lerner family and Mark is not. Does it have to do with an impending sale? Is he just cheap? Who knows. But it worries me that Rizzo is going to be forced to piece together a team with a bunch of AAAA players and “highly touted” prospects within.
Was anybody actually serious when they said Ruiz, Morales, Garcia, Abrams, House, Wood, Crews, Hassell III, and Young” as the starting 9 with “Gore, Irvin, Parker, Herz, Rutledge” as the rotation? Somehow I feel like that what we’re going to get
Rizzo prefers the "run silent, run deep" approach. The problem, of course, is that us outsiders don't know what is happening underwater. Maybe nothing. Maybe another Scherzer signing. Maybe something in between.
Post a Comment