James Wood is 23 years old and after a disappointing finish to last season where he hit .223 with 7 homers after the break while striking out 105 times in 269 PAs, he's back to meeting high expectations. The early season is always full of wild variation (Currently a Nats team with Alex Call, Dom Smith, and Ildermo Vargas would be DESTROYING opposing pitching staffs) but Wood is the seventh best hitter in MLB by OPS+ and the 5th youngest in the Top 50*. He's a guy you build an offense around and the assumption is the Nats will do that. They HAVE to or else what the hell are we doing here?
If that's the case the Wood will start getting paid in 2028 and will probably need to be wrapped up no later than 2030 though the sooner the better. And if THAT'S the case then the Nats have no more four seasons to figure this out and anyone looking to get paid before the Nats decide to go in is likely going to be paid by someone else.
I'm going to guess and say that won't be clear by the end of 2027 so anyone who's a FA after this or next year we should consider gone. This includes every FA pitcher (that's fine) and it includes Luis Garcia. Luis is for the most part a perfectly acceptable part and he's actually still young (turns 26 in a couple weeks) but losing him probably won't be a big deal.
The FA class of 2029 and 2030 are the issues. 2029 has CJ Abrams who is unarguably the Nats second best hitter and just an overall fun guy to watch. If he wasn't out of position at SS he's be an easy plus player and someone ELSE you build around. Even as is it's hard to see getting rid of him because the current third best hitter on the Nats is either likely flash in the pan Weimer or competent Daylen Lile. There are other guys who might come up but there's no guarantees and CJ can hit in the majors. There's no doubts about that. The plan going into last year probably did have CJ traded away but it also had Wood getting a sidekick in Dylan Crews. If not him than Brady House or maybe a bounce back from Hassell. But Crews crashed, Hassell proved to be a AAAA type and House's development has been slow, if steady. Abrams be 28 in 2029 so he should have one solid contract in him. Can the team afford to trade him? Wouldn't that just mean signing someone else anyway? One good bat is clearly not enough. I think the situation dictates keeping Abrams as well with a long term deal soon.
2030 is when Cade Cavalli hits FA. Now with a pitcher and this much time you can't really say much but right now he looks major league front of the rotation capable and he's the only non-temporary FA arm you have starting games . Guys SHOULD develop. It'd almost be impossible for them not to. But who and when and how good? It's all up in the air. Still I'm not sure you sign Cavalli long term. He's a pitcher. This is further off. And most importantly, the guy will be 31 in 2030. A long term deal for a pitcher at that age is risky. Not stupid like signing a guy at 35 for 3+ years but it's a gamble. This is one we're just going to have to watch and see if the situation forces the Nats to keep Cade as the guy bc either he develops into a top of the rotation arm or there just isn't anyone else.
If you are like "this isn't a lot of building blocks, Harper" you're right. But the alternative to not signing Wood is a third rebuild in a row. The Nats punted on trying with this group as-is when they traded Gore (younger than Cavalli!) who if not better than Cade is easily more reliable. That was an admission they weren't going to compete through 2027 and didn't want to pay Gore a big paycheck. Ok but there has to be a timeline and a plan around that timeline. Wood getting PAID feels like the timeline. You want to be competing when he's getting his money. How do we do that? I think we start not by trading CJ but by signing him. After that though - it's a lot of prayers.
*Wood will be 24 on Sept 17th. DET's McGonigle (13th) is 21 until August 18th, CIN's Stewart (16th) is 22 all season, KC's Jensen (37th) is 22 until July 3rd, OAK's Kurtz (49th) just turned 23 before the season started. Wood beats out Cardinal rookie Wetherholt (41st) by a week.
Well, *IF* they're ever going to start investing, which is definitely not certain, then I'd start by extending Griffin.
ReplyDeleteNo wait, hear me out. If the talent pipeline (which, for bats, is seriously encouraging for the first time in ages) is for real then they'll have bats, and soon. '27 (if it happens) or '28.
Then what do they need? Pitching. Not just aces, but "pretty solid" too. If they trade Griffin to a contender in July, what are they going to get in return? A bunch of "maybe"s. They're at the point where they'll need a guy to be in the rotation in 2028. Who's going to trade _that_ away to get Griffin? Nobody.
So unless someone's really willing to give you 2 future front-of-the-order guys (or catchers that even we can't screw up), it's a better deal just to lock Griffin up for a few years.
Going all-in on 30yo Foster Griffin after six (very good) starts is pretty bold and brash. I wouldn't do it, and I'm not going to be mad at Toboni if the Nats don't do it either.
DeleteTraditional reminder that the Nats cannot force anyone to sign an extension. Reporting was that the Nats approached Abrams about an extension in 2024 and it didn't go anywhere. Wood is a Boras client, making a pre-FA extension extremely unlikely. I'd be shocked if anyone was signed long term before the next CBA.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Aside from money (which safe to say the Nats will not be the highest bidder), what is a compelling reason for a player like Wood or Abrams to sign an extension with the *Washington Nationals*? As much as my blind fandom tell me they are “that team”, that are NOT that team.”
DeleteI just wish I felt more confident that the compelling logic of "or else what the hell are we doing here?" would drive these decisions for this team.
ReplyDeleteBut taking for the sake of the exercise Harper's assumption that some spending will eventually happen, I think the question is "how many homegrown stars are required before the team will invest in trying to win games, at least a little"?
I think we saw from the Gore trade that 4 is not enough. Let's be as generous as possible and assume the number is 5. (Though they've been so aggressive cutting payroll, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number is 6 or 7.)
How soon could there be 5?
Can it happen by July? I suppose it's possible that any one of Lile, Crews or House could take a big leap forward, but the cumulative expected stars from that group has to be around 0.25, and probably much lower than that on that timeline. Maybe Morales adds another .10 or so, but clearly there are very few folks in the pipeline who might be able to deliver real impact this season, and not one who you'd bet on without getting very steep odds. So I'd call the chances of 2 such breakouts functionally zero.
And that means that I think the team is committed to being sellers at the deadline - Griffin gone for sure, Garcia, Littel, and Mikolas gone if anyone wants them, and possibly any relievers showing promise if the market for them spikes like usual. (All of them have lots of control, but there's wisdom in "always be trading relievers" and I think that's likely how this FO thinks, possibly always but certainly outside of peak contention windows.)
And, if they're selling, I think Abrams is out the door, and that means we're down to 2 stars and there's no way they'll sign any one of consequence for 2027.
Who might be ready to step up in 2027? Those same guys from this year are still in the mix but Susana is the best bet. And say King and Wallace add in their 10% chances too. But the odds against breakouts of 3 non-Wood/Cavalli stars are very long indeed. Which would make 2027 another lost season, with the team selling at the deadline and probably no offseason spending ahead of 2028.
2028 is where it's possible, I think.
In addition to the guys already named, there are lots of high upside prospects who should/could be ready (Sykora, Rosario, Sime, Harmon, Willits, Fitz-Gerald, and Cruz). If, say, half those guys hit, we'll have enough homegrown talent to finally end the rebuild and set up 2029 as the start of a competitive window.
Of course, then we lose Cavalli after 2029 and Wood after 2030. so it might be a short-lived window indeed.
Oh well, I guess it's hard to build a competitive team without spending any money. Maybe we should just reset our expectations to be satisfied with one playoff appearance per decade.
Woah, sorry. Didn't realize that was so long.
DeleteTLDR - the team won't spend until it's competitive and the team won't almost never be competitive without spending. DOOOOOM
Except Abrams out the door means resetting the window yet again. I think you absolutely have to try and sign Abrams unless Willets takes a massive leap this year and threatens starting in AAA next year at age 19
DeleteThe Dodgers signed Kyle Tucker for four year for a mere $240M. Who thinks that the Lerner's would be willing to pay Wood any where near that kind of money. The Nats will develop Wood and his next team will reap the benefits.
ReplyDeleteLockout in 2027 aside, perhaps players that want to win are reconsidering options. Soto is stuck with his contract on a Mets team that spends money but is headed nowhere. B Harper and Schwarber are suffering the same fate on a declining Phillies team. Money is a major consideration, yes, but am guessing that more some players are looking at success indicators. The Dodgers and Yankees seem best at using big money to build long-term --- but they can't hire everyone. Is it crazy to hope that some may buy into the Nats development template?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Nattydread - not even faint optimism is permitted. It's full throated gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, or you're considered crazy. We now routinely spend time anguishing over things that haven't even happened!
DeleteYes, it is crazy. Since the Nationals re-signed Strasburg, they have not spent any money to try to build a winning team. There are plenty of good teams with World Series aspirations that have the money to sign any high-quality free agents that the Dodgers or Yankees don't sign. I don't see why any top quality free agent would sacrifice one penny of salary to come to the Nats.
ReplyDelete