Michael J Soroka... wait a second... Hey it is J! Well actually J G, Michael John Graydon Soroka.
Soroka was a top prospect as a minor leaguer and lived up to the hype in his first full season. His 2.68 ERA was a bit of a mirage but a 21 year old throwing to a 3.25-3.50 ERA? In 2019? That's great and it nearly won him the Rookie of the Year.
But here's the problem. In his rookie year he started 29 games and threw 174 innings. In the next FIVE years he's started 18 and has thrown 126. That would be a worrying number if we were talking his average year. We're not. We're talking combined. And they haven't been good.
Now we'll flip back to the good. He DID get better last year. More innings, fewer hits, fewer homers, more Ks. It wasn't close to a full season but it's the right trend coming off a two year injury hiatus
Flip. But one thing did get worse - his walk rate. It jumped to 5.0 BB/9!
Flip. The Nats starting pitching surprised in 2024 by not walking anyone and not giving up homers. The hits came bc they didn't strike anyone out but with few people on base and the ball staying in the park the opponent had to string together hits and the runs were harder to come by. This is EXACTLY the type of pitcher Mike Soroka was when he was good.
Flip. While he got better giving up homers last year, he still gave up a good number of them and he gives up a lot more fly balls now. If he is a flyable pitcher now there's only so much one can do with that. See Josiah Gray.
Soroka is a gamble. Do the Nats need a gamble? I don't know. Certainly not as the best arm they sign or even the second best but after that? Sure! Gambles are fun! If it's a secondary move hitting one usually helps a lot more than missing one hurts. But is this a secondary move? We can't answer that yet.
If Soroka is not one of the best 2 SP brought in this off-season then I think this is an ok deal. Not great. Seems pretty expensive compared to the likely results. But ok. He was a Nats type of pitcher before getting hurt. He's vaguely returning to some sort of form. Maybe you get lucky
If Soroka IS one of the best 2 SP Brough in this off-season than this simply isn't enough. It's a gamble then not only on Soroka but that everyone else in the rotation doesn't need more help. I don't like that gamble. If you are ready, you shouldn't need good breaks to get you winning, but bad breaks to get you losing.
I like this signing and here’s why. You keep the kids on the rotation to see what they can do, start Cavalli in the minors with no rush. If Soroka does well and so does Cavalli then you have a good problem on your hands. One struggles then you go with the other in the rotation. Both struggle…look elsewhere (Josiah will be back eventually too). Soroka can always go back to the pen or be used like Spencer Turnbull did for Phillies. All in all I like it as a low risk move.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Sherriff’s comment, I’ll add that this move also makes sense as a reasonably priced (1/$9 instead of MLBTR projected 2/$14 makes this deal one of very few roughly “on target” projected cost deals in what has proven to be a red hot pitching market) way to get at least one starter. And if he flops there his bullpen performance is a reasonable Plan B for one year commitment.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes this signing a way to get at least one (as Harper notes, Nats likely need two) starting pitcher while saving overall $$$$$ to sign 1-2 true middle of the order bats for 1B and/or 3B/corner OF. And maybe another starter. Which the team absolutely does need to do to aim for .500 and potential WC relevance.
So does this move the needle by itself? No. But does it potentially make a lot of sense in a larger pattern? Arguably yes. We shall see if it works!
I think you all are dreaming to think the Lerners are paying for any top pitchers beyond this. Guarantee it certainly won’t be two starters better than this or I’ll eat my HAT too. They were pretending to “wait” till the time was right to save money and just fooling everybody and kicking the can. Gonna be the next Tampa bay. I mean they tried to sell the team, they have no interest in a winning team.
ReplyDeleteI don't hate the signing; I hate the announcement that Soroka will be a starter. The Nats already have four legitimate starting pitchers: Gore (solid midrotation), Herz (high-talent upside though clearly not established), Parker and Irvin (lefty and righty Kyle Gibson back-of-rotation types). They need good TOR starters. Now they sign Soroka, to be the fifth starting pitcher. Yes, he may wash out of the role at some point, but the issue is that now the rotation is complete, barring one of the other four getting traded. And beyond that, he's only signed for one year, meaning that even if he hits his upside and is very good again like he was before the injuries hit, he won't be part of the Nats in 2026 and forward.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is right. This is a clear, plain signal that the Nationals do not intend to sign any starter to a multi-year deal and probably that they have no intention on spending on the position players either. If Soroka had been signed as a reliever, it would have been a good sign, but openly announcing him as a starter says clearly that their only FA moves are going to be dumpster-diving for the next Candelario or Winker type instead of actually trying to build a competitive team.
Yeah maybe but calling him a starter in a press release doesn’t exactly bind them from signing or (more likely) trading for TOR-type. And that might take 1-2 of those young arms.
DeleteDon't get hung up on the idea that there are five starting pitching slots and five pitchers to fill them....and therefore game over. There are countless stories every year of the teams with 7 or more starting pitchers who are having problems filling their rotation because of injuries, low-performance or slumping youngsters sent back to AAA, innings limits or sore shoulders.
DeleteI don't know--because Rizzo doesn't talk with me--but I doubt he is done or thinks he is done with the team's starting pitcher needs for 2025.
In addition to the Steven's point about the risks of injury, having a bad season, and/or slumps, I note that all four of the holdover members of the starting rotation have minor league options. Being able to stash depth for all of the above is a good thing. Heck, at this point I'm fine if they bring Max back. Not because I expect him to be MAX, but because he can start Opening Day, ease the pressure on the kids, and show them what it takes to be the best.
DeleteWhat i like about it is that a one year deal doesn't cause the roster issues I brought up when we discussed the rotation last week. And his history as a reliever provides a safety valve too.
ReplyDeleteI also like that they are betting on a pitch mix / coaching fix guy given the positive signs we've seen from the Nats on that front the last couple years. And along those lines, it also feels like it overindexes on upside and variance, and I think the Nats should be variance seeking this season relative to most other teams.
What I don't like about the move is that Soroka's median outcome isn't any better than Parker's or Cavalli's or Stuart's, so the move doesn't improve the team much at all in a lot of potential futures. Basically it helps when Soroka hits his upside and/or the team has particularly bad pitcher health outcomes - so maybe 30% of the time?
But, still, I don't think it blocks any moves that are or should be on the table. If we somehow in a position to win the bidding for Burnes, Soroka won't be the reason why the team backs out. And I don't think there's any information here, one way or the other, about how seriously they are pursuing of Walker and the rest of the power bats. I hope they are, and I haven't seen anything that makes me confident that they aren't, but I also know that I have no way of knowing until those guys sign here or elsewhere. You all must have some serious inside sources to be so certain.
I've kind of resigned to the idea that the Lerner's are still hoping to sell secretly and don't want to spend anything until that's done, so Rizzo is stuck with smaller price, short term deals to flip for prospects if they pay off still.
ReplyDeleteUgh. 60/3 is no where near my top offer for Walker. This is the first signing where I really think Rizzo messed up.
ReplyDeleteI just think Walker was looking for a team closer to contending than the Nats, even though the Astros are doing some weird stuff this offseason.
DeleteYeah, I'd have been wary about a fourth year (except maybe as an option, preferably team but perhaps vesting based on games played or number of plate appearances), but I wouldn't have regretted 3/$65 or 3/$72. Unless Walker specifically wanted a closer-to-contention team and wouldn't take Rizzo's calls, this feels like a major miss. (And, relevant to Harper's interests, a major miss for the Yankees as well, for that matter, given that all indications are that they intend Bellinger for CF.)
DeleteYeah. Some rumbling that they are going to cheap out on 1B to go after Vladdy Jr.
DeleteI agree that 3/$20M is a price that the Nats should have been able to come up with. I think it unlikely that the offer would have gotten Walker to DC. In Houston he joins a team on an eight year playoffs run in a MUCH easier division in a ballpark that is not only friendly to RH power but is in a state with no state income tax. The Nats would have had to beat that offer by a LOT.
Delete@Harper yeah I’ve discussed with my one buddy about the idea of getting Vlad and I love the idea although he is likely to be very expensive. Another similar year to last I imagine gets him over 400M
Delete