The Nats starting pitching in 2024 was like the half-full half-empty glass of water.
On one hand the Nats got an incredibly productive 13 starts from Trevor Williams, had no major injuries after April, and watched as three separate young pitchers in Jake Irvin (well... youngish), Mitchell Parker, and DJ Herz all showed a level of surprising competence. And it was the last year of Patrick Corbin!
On the other hand, the last year of Patrick Corbin is still a year of Patrick Corbin. The injury they did have knocked Josiah Gray out for the year, a player they were hoping would make a huge step forward this year. The other huge step forward was desired from MacKenzie Gore, who showed some flashes but was mostly just ok.
I think most people though, would end up looking at it half-full. No they didn't find an ace but the Nats are probably happy in general with where they ended up. A rotation with 4 guys in their 20s pitching like 3/4s.
That's also not a playoff winning rotation, not unless these guys get better, someone steps up, someone gets signed, or the offense takes off. But that's a lot of options!
Presumed Plan :
The rotation will feature MacKenizie Gore and three of Irvin, Parker, Herz, Gray, Cavalli with a FA signing in the 1 or 2 slot.
Reasoning behind Presumed Plan :
The Nats have money to spend. But the Nats also have kids almost everywhere to evaluate. So the spending is going to be concentrated on a few spots.
The rotation is no exception to having kids to evaluate. However when it comes to pitching "never enough" is a good mantra, and looking at the talent level of these guys, outside of Gore or maybe Herz if you squint, the chances of any of these guys being considered ace or near-ace is slim.
So you sign someone you like to be a 1/2 and then you see what happens with the rest of them. Depending on that and who you sign and how they do, 2026's FA goals become clearer.
My Take :
Yes, do this. Honestly they could sign two starters and I'd be happy with it.
I don't like relying on non-prospect kids who are probably ok but could flame out and leave the Nats in real trouble. And yes "ok" is the best way to describe them. As solid as these guys seemingly were the Nats rotation was actually pretty mediocre overall. Alot of that was Corbin but take him out and replace him with a guy like the other 4 and you don't get that much better. Hitting was down last year (NL OPS dropped from .740 to .719) so what appeared to be good season were just average.
Not that you are angry with a 24 year old average pitcher but you don't want a rotation that's 5 of these.
They need a reliable ace-type and Corbin Burnes fits the bill. Plus replacing a bad Corbin with a good one would make me happy. He's been consistently really good. The declining K rate is a bit of a concern but it came along with solid control keeping him a very good pitcher, if not great. Get him.
Failing that there isn't a great pitcher unless you want to bet on Verlander (I don't). With potential still out there are Jack Flaherty (has hit 30 starts once in his career with mixed results after looking like a star. Was very good last year), then Kyle Gibson/Charlie Morton (steady, reliable, too old for more than a couple year contract though), then guys like Nick Pivetta, Andrew Heaney, Sean Manaea who aren't really 1/2s. That's kind of why I want Burnes who seems to be as sure a thing as you can get. There are some potential 1/2s next year (Cease, Gallen, Framber) but you can't rely on them getting to FA.
One last intriguing option is Patrick Sandoval. This is a guy who when he's right looks like a 1/2 but is coming off of Tommy John and will miss most of 2025. He's a signing for the future and a gamble which makes him sort of fit with the Nats, who could then just evaluate everyone to start the year. And if you wanted to sneak a deal this may be a place to look. Of course this suggests punting 2025 for a playoff run.
Other notes
The Nats have been noted in interest for Gleyber Torres. As a Yankees fan I can say he's perfectly ok overall but has some real bad stretches at the plate and more importantly with concentration. Not a bad guy at all, but that makes him seems like a bad fit for the Nats who can obsess over that type of thing.
They picked up a relief Rule V arm in Evan Reifert. Looked real good in 40 innings of AA ball. Great stuff, but wild. They also lost Matt Cronin in the minor league portion. He looked like a guy set for the majors before getting hurt in 2023. Wouldn't surprise me if he became productive.
The Nats won the draft lottery. Early indications overall is that it's better than the weak 2024 class but mostly bc of high schoolers as opposed to college players who might be ready sooner and fit better in the Nats window. Still when you have the #1 pick all you care about is how the best guy is doing.
11 comments:
I like Flaherty as an option. I think Walker Buehler is a reasonable. Burnes is the best of them, but that contract is heading in a terrifying direction after the Fried deal. Generally I like shorter deals for pitchers, but then so does everyone except pitchers
I think that the Nats' chance of getting Corbin Burns is essentially nil. In addition to being up against big-$$ teams, those teams can offer an immediate path to contention for a guy already in his 30's. Further, he's a CA kid and one of the teams reportedly in the hunt is in CA (SF), and plays in a very pitcher-friendly ballpark. Nats aren't really able to compete with that. So, Plan B.
The pitching is better than it's been going into recent seasons, but that's a low bar. And the depth is shaky. Gray isn't coming back until mid-season at best. And you don't really know what you're getting from him or Cavalli. Irvin, Herz, Parker, and Gore all have multiple options which gives the Nats some flexibility. I would like to see the Nats sign one of the second tier FA starters (Flaherty; Manea; Heaney; Williams). Flaherty is the best of the bunch, but the others offer the potential advantage of shorter contracts (2-3 years) who would be coming off the books as more of the youngsters climb on the arbitration ladder. Really, bringing back Trevor Williams for a couple of years at $10-11M AAV and a wild card signing of Max Scherzer for a year would be fine.
Max? REALLY? Hear me out. It's not that I expect Max to be MAX. Signing him would be popular with the fans, sure, but that's not the point. He would absorb the spotlight and thus take the pressure off of Gore and the rest while also being able to mentor the younger players. Max gets the Opening Day start with Gore and Williams are presumed in the rotation with the last two slots being the best of Irvin/Cavalli/Herz/Parker with the other two working in AAA for the inevitable injuries/struggles. Joining them in the AAA rotation would be former 12th round pick (2021) Andrew Alvarez and former 18th round pick (2022) Brad Lord to see if they can reproduce their good AA numbers in AAA with Tyler Stuart (from the Winker trade) rounding it out. That could leave Rutledge and Adon out, which would be fine with me. At this point Rutledge should be moved to the bullpen and Adon is a DFA candidate.
Really, to me the striking improvement in the organization is in the pitching depth. The Nats could well have real prospects pitching at every level of their system in 2025.
I don't hate the Max idea if only because this FA class is so weak. Realistically I'm with Harper, I want to overpay for Burnes and also sign a second tier guy like Manaea. Realistically that won't happen, but you never know what Rizzo has cooking. Maybe he uses one of Herz, Irvin, Parker (plus others/cash) in a trade for someone like Pablo Lopez. I don't know, but I really will be disappointed if that Nats don't sign a #1 SP
Assuming he has something left in the gas tank, I like the Max idea. He might be willing to do a one-year contract and he absolutely will create a safe zone for the kids to grow without having to be in the spotlight. That's part of what Strasburg liked--Max played the ace role (and loved every minute of it), while Strasburg could be an ace too but without the attention that he didn't like.
I'm fine with signing Max, if they sign one of the other guys too.
Sorry, not keen on signing Max. Sure, it would be fun to have him back, and he would (in theory) take pressure off Gore. But, he's been injured a lot in the past several years, and I don't think he can be counted on to make more than 15 starts. Would he be a mentor to younger pitchers? I'm not so sure that's within his skill set.
I'm surprised there isn't more said about Jordan Montgomery. Can be had basically for the price of eating the contract and a very minor minor leaguer. He's the sort of bounce back "we can fix" him player the Nats like to take on, and the terrible contract helps them not be the lowest-spending team in the league.
I see it as two, somewhat separate questions.
The first is, how can the Nats acquire an ace. I think Harper nails this. No pitcher on the roster has a median outcome of an SP1, including the two with ace-level stuff.
That means being in on Burnes, as he's the only ace left on the market. But John C is right that we're very unlikely to win that auction and we should be planning with the expectation that our bid will fail. The good news is that you don't need an ace to compete for a wild card spot, which is our 2025 goal, so we can try again next year without that much of a setback.
The second question is about depth, and here's where I don't think I agree with Harper or most of the folks here. I think our depth is pretty great. Beyond Gore, Herz, Irvin and Parker -- who line up as a pretty solid 2-5 -- the team has several plausible starters ready in the high minors: Cavalli, Alvarez, Lord, Stuart, and Lara. Plus maybe Bennett, depending on health and development. Maybe Gray for the month of September. And then there are the 3 highly touted youngsters, at least one of whom could very easily be forcing their way into the rotation by the end of the year.
I know you can't depend on health and we should expect to lose around the equivalent of 1 aggregate season from our 4 relatively established SPs to injury. But that's a lot a workable SP depth, and I'm worried that giving someone like Manaea a three or four year deal would boost our 2025 expected win total by 1 or 2 at the cost of possibly complicating development for a couple guys and likely causing roster issues in 2026 and beyond.
Now, I agree that's not the end of the world - we can always trade an SP or two next offseason - but I'm less than enthusiastic about overpaying for a non-ace SP given how robust our depth actually is.
Serious question: is there such thing as overpaying when your payroll is $35 million?
Admittedly, that's a pretty solid point.
@Anonymous 12:46 - On a one year deal? No, not really. On a 5+ year deal? Absolutely. By then all of the players now getting the major league minimum will be on the arbitration escalator and approaching free agency. It also could impair your ability to sign another free agent at that point to fill a hole in the roster.
Post a Comment