I do have more to come but you know - snow storm .
So for today - what do you expect back for CJ Abrams. They don't HAVE to trade CJ but it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that they will be competitive in the time before he becomes a FA. Are they going to be good enough to convince him to stay? Do you take that chance instead of selling him on a decently high note with a couple years of control left? The way I read the Nats management the answer is no.
So what do you want back for him? What do you expect back for him?
If it's like Gore would you be happy with 2-3 prospects that are near the top of a middling minor league organization? The quantity over quality approach? Or are you wanting a more solid prospect. A Top 100 type that you can at least point to as likely to be a major leaguer of some level than the lottery ticket approach. Is there anyone else you are looking to sell? Luis Garcia seems like he could go. Jacob Young? He doesn't quite have a place here if you love Daylen Lile.
14 comments:
Right now there is no one knocking on the door to push Abrams aside (a hot September for Nunez notwithstanding). My take is that you work with Abrams to see if you can unlock his potential, both mental and physical. If you can level him up, that makes him more viable to help the next Nats contending team while also making him a more valuable trade piece if they decide to deal him later. Trading him now to me would seem like selling low, which is rarely a good idea.
I think the OF situation is meaningfully different. For his career, JY is a 2.7 WAR/600 player. That's crazy for an OF4. Maybe if you're the Dodgers you carry it, but even a normal team in peak contention probably shouldn't. (Lile has produced at a slightly worse rate, but I think it's easier to believe in his upside from here than Young's. Unless you're willing to cut bait on Crews - and of course they aren't yet, Young is the backup.)
The system also has multiple OFers in the upper minors who are likely to perform above replacement - Franklin, Pinckney, and Hassell certainly, and probably Sam Petersen. That's more depth than is useful.
The team should trade 1 of JY, Lile and Crews unless they're planning on covering DH (or 1B?) with Wood and Lile enough to get all four serious playing time. They should also trade at least one and probably more of those four OF prospects. And this would be true even if they were keeping Gore and Abrams and spending $70M more to improve the team.
As far as the other potential trade targets, I'd trade them if I can get more value than they're worth and hold on to them otherwise. And for context, I'd have held on to Gore. If Garcia or Gray has a good first half, I bet they get moved at the deadline.
And we'll have to wait and see about Abrams. I still have worries about whether he's tradable at all given his casino issue. If I were I rival GM, I'd be terrified of the information asymmetry around that, though maybe with all our FO turnover, that's evened out enough to make a deal possible.
Fans need to prepare for Gore (and eventually CJ) to do better elsewhere simply because they will have more talented and established teammates. Before Gore can become an ace (and handle the pressures involved), he needs to prove that his floor is a solid #3 starter. That can happen in Texas, but could never happen here when he is the team's only pitcher good enough to be guaranteed a rotation spot (and hence our unchallenged default ace).
Similarly, if CJ goes to SF, I would expect him to quickly become a more consistent and valued player by dint of batting #1 or #2 ahead of three established ML hitters. He will see so many more hittable pitches. By the same reasoning, Wood is much more likely to become a star if the GM signs (or the coaches develop) other high-octane hitters. For the moment, it is fair to ask where they are coming from?
I think the Lerners expect Toboni to conjure about 40 WAR from the prospects in the system now. They got a new pitching machine, so that'll surely develop at least 2 MLB all-stars from the 54-76 Blue Rocks.
Agreed. I'd trade any OF not named Wood for whom I'd get the best price.
I don't understand the notion that a Nationals player that refuses a contract extension will eventually be lost to free agency. The Nationals have one of the lowest salary budgets. They should be able to meet and exceed any contract offer. We aren't dealing with super stars like Juan Soto, the salary won't be stratospheric.
Concur with John C. Sure, if there is an amazing Soto-like offer you don't say no. But for starters I think the Nationals new target is "2028 = 2011." That includes an upside where the Nats could be fringe Wild Card contenders in 2028.
That means the 2028 Nats may want to keep CJ for a playoff run (we did so with Harper in 2018 and Rendon in 2019, after all) while assuming one of the King/Dickerson/Willits/Fien/Fitz-Gerald middle INF pipeline will be ready to step in by 2029.
And if the team isn't in WC contention in 2028, assume that the new development team helps make CJ a "sell high for less time" vs a "sell low for more time" asset.
You can look at the Brewers as to "why." They traded Burnes, Williams, and now Peralta a year before FA for the same reason that Willy Adames is now a San Fransisco Giant: despite having one of the lowest salary totals in MLB: they aren't willing to spend. Short of one of the Nats' players going full Jose Ramirez and taking a massively undermarket contract because he wants to stay in Washington, people simply don't believe that the Lerners are willing to be the highest bidder on a player.
Indeed; if nothing else, even if they don't think they can extend him or there's any point in letting him walk for the QO, if they can get him to improve his defense, or avoid the second-half swoon, that would meaningfully increase what they could ask for him in return.
I’ll take six middling prospects (half of them with injury history) with the best ones being 18-19 years old, and none in the top 100. That should get the deal done, right?
And I say six instead of five like they got for Gore cuz ya know… the extra year of control for Abrams. Quantity over quality. It’s like the saying goes “one man’s trash is… our trash.” Or is that not right?
Garcia… Young… sure, why not? Maybe put Wood on the block as well. It’s not like the team is going to be competitive while he’s here and certainly not competitive enough to entice him to sign an extension. The guy looks like he’s having a lousy time in this uniform so maybe have him try Dodger blue on for size. So yes, trade James Wood while they’re at it. They could probably get 7-8 mediocre prospects for him. And while they’re still charging an arm and a leg for tickets to see a AAAA team play a serious version of banana ball, maybe they can sell some jerseys at discount since so many of these “young core” players will be here today and gone tomorrow.
What do I want for Abrams? How about a billionaire owner who doesn’t act like he’s broke.
Do I sense bitterness? Let's be optimistic. In 5 - 6 years, we can trade one or more of the prospects who pan out for a handful of 18 year olds. And keep doing this every 5 - 6 years until we get the next Bryce Harper, Steven Strasburg or Paul Skenes in the draft.
Keith Law in the Athletic ranks the Nats farm system #6. That's a positive change.
"On paper, it’s a lot of talent, but it’s also a lot of underperforming talent, at least relative to expectations when those players were drafted or first emerged as real prospects, giving the new front office a significant challenge in their first year on the job".
Being #6 out of #30 is encouraging. His comment tells me: we didn't draft badly, so much as we developed players poorly. With new management and coaches that is a really hopeful perspective.
Post a Comment