It's Memorial Day weekend and we're going to be looking at guys with the idea that what we're seeing could be real. Which means, by proxy, we're going to be looking at the Nats with the idea what we're seeing could be real and that means .500 could be real.
To be fair this all basically hinges on two players. CJ Abrams and James Wood have been two of the Top 10 offensive players in baseball this year. If the Nats have two MVP candidates in their lineup then .500 is possible because the rest of the lineup isn't great - but it's good enough. And the pitching isn't good - but it's not bad enough to make a team with a two-MVP offense a loser. And more importantly the pitching has been healthy. That may not seem like much but when the pitching is not good, the pitching behind it is usually pretty bad. The Nats starters have all made 11 starts this year. The carefully controlled Nats relief core has five guys with 15 or more appearances. The dam is leaky and worrisome but has not broken.
While we dive deeper into all of this that's the basic truth. The Nats, who as a random chance thing should be lucky to have one, have two of the best players at the plate this season. The rest of the squad just has to be average ish and that's pretty much what they are (except for Nunez) for that offense to sing. The pitching just has to be not as bad as the offense is good to get to .500. That's the balance they are maintaining right now.
Curious about your perspective— if you are the GM, do you trade CJ at the deadline?
ReplyDeleteI said a few weeks ago no. I'll caveat that with - if Seaver King looks great in his first taste of the majors then looking at this in a "this is what the org should be thinking as a rebuilding org trying to smartly spend money" way - maybe.
ReplyDeleteAs we've seen with the offense - Wood can't carry it by himself. But Wood and another great bat probably can. King is the closest the Nats have to that coming up and any trade of CJ is gambling on King being that #2 bat.
You''re only really gambling on King specifically for 2027 (Wilits and Fitz-Gerald should be in the mix by 2028) and, even then, only if you accept that the team will continue to be underfunded. Even if you can't find an allstar middle infielder in FA, this team has enough holes that we could absolutely sign a couple serious bats if the money is there.
DeleteI think the real, if unsatisfying, answer is that it depends on the offers. I'd trade Abrams for 1 60 and 2 50s, maybe even a bit less. 1 60, 1 50 and 2 45s.
But I'm not rooting for a trade and I would be very upset if he's traded at a discount like Gore appeared to be. Which may be all the market can bear, given Abrams's defense and possible lingering concerns about his focus. And if that's the case, I hold on to him without any reservations whatsoever.
@SMS: to be fair, whatever any one evaluation of the trade held at the time, the early returns on the Gore trade are looking pretty good. Cabrera just hit his way out of A Ball (1.113 OPS) to get to A+ as a 20yo. Devin Fitz-Gerald is currently doing the same to A+ ball 1.033 OPS) also as a 20yo. Gavin Fien is off to a slow start, but he was BP's #59 prospect coming into the season. Abimelec Ortiz, who was regarded almost as a throw-in, has recovered from a slow start to post an .837 OPS (117 wRC+) at AAA. And the real roll of the dice is Alejandro Rosario, who was a consensus top 100 prospect (BA#49, MLB #50, BP #72) before he got hurt. And Gore has continued to be pretty much what he was when he was in DC. Averaging five innings/start (55 IP/11 starts) with a middling ERA 4.42. His Ks are slightly down, his BBs up. All while playing in front of a MUCH better defense than he had when he was in DC. The only reason that the Nats weren't DFL in Defensive Efficiency was that the Rockies play at Coors. The Rangers are currently #4 in DE.
DeleteIf Gore ever becomes the true ace that he has teased and the prospects all fade, we can go back to lamenting the trade. But right now? Looks pretty good to me, especially considering that Gore is a FA after a season that has a labor dispute looming over it.
I'll agree that the trade looks better today than on the day it was made. I originally had it as 2 45+s (Fien, Rosario), 1 45 (Fitz-Gerald), 1 40+ (Cabrera) and 1 40 (Ortiz). Now it's probably 1 50 (FG), 1 45+ (Rosario), 1 45 (Fien), 1 40+ (Cabrera) and 1 40 (Ortiz).
DeleteYou can disagree with those valuations, but I think they're close to consensus . Yes, Cabrera forced an early promotion, but he's almost 21 and has struggled in his first month of A+. That's still a 40+. With Rosario, I think balancing the frontline upside and the 2 year hiatus to an FV45+ was and is fair, and incidentally more optimistic than consensus.. On Fien, I know many evaluators are higher on him, but he's already moved to a corner OF, and the downside case for his offense (for example, FG's) looks more compelling to me than the upside one. A 45 seems if anything a bit generous.
Still, FG being a 50 is a big deal and makes the overall package about fair in retrospect. But "fair" is a far cry from "an offer we can't refuse". And that's what I'm looking for when trading all-stars with multiple years of control. I want compensation for taking on risk and diffusing value across multiple players. "Fair" is not enough.
Those decisions are tough. I was disappointed they didn't trade CJ during the offseason. Boy am I glad they didn't. Even if they trade him in July, his value is much higher as teams can now see what peak CJ looks like. We'd probably get a better return than we did for Gore. But as Harper said, you'd be gambling on King being the #2 bat in the lineup and that is quite a gamble. CJ is proven, King is not. I always say that whether CJ signs an extension or leaves via FA is up to him, not the FO. However, I'm hopeful that his experience this season with a revamped PD and coaching staff helping him to reach his ceiling, he considers sticking out but time will tell.
ReplyDeleteThe Nats lots Bryce, but got Soto the very next year. Based on my feelings about the previous regime, we got incredibly lucky on those Soto evaluations, rushing him up to MLB, and letting Bryce walk. That doesn't happen very often.
Also, how long does YoYo have to crush AAA until he gets a shot? With the help we need at the corners, not sure what could be causing this delay other than service time manipulation. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteYeah - I'm not sure. It could be soft manipulation (no outcry) it could be not wanting to mess with the 40-man (he'd need to take a spot)
DeleteYou know, there's no need to trade Abrams right now. "Losing CJ for nothing" isn't quite the worst thing - you still get his services through 2027 (if it happens.) And eventually this team will probably be a contender and you'll want him around for that. Even if Seaver King is a star, I'd be ok bumping Nunez. I'm assuming King's just riding a hot streak, but if he doesn't cool off in 2 or 3 weeks, I'd just call him up. His offense is just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAnd PBN is right -- I don't know what YoYo did wrong, but he sure looks like he's ready to face major-league pitching. Given who's playing 1b, 3b, and DH, surely he'd be better than the worst of them.
Jeez, can you imagine a lineup where your worst hitters are Ruiz and Crews?
I think Abrams is under contract through ‘28. Here’s an article on YoYo:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.federalbaseball.com/washington-nationals-prospects/91220/nationals-prospect-yohandy-morales-continues-push-for-mlb-debut
TLDR: still a lot of swing and miss.
Can the Nats call up King and have him play 2nd instead of SS?
Looks like King has had "some" reps at 2B, but the majority at both levels this year have been at SS. Good news is he was a utility guy in college, so he should be decent at either position? In limited time at Rochester, he's played four games at SS and two at 2B.
DeleteRe: YoYo... while his K% is 24% this year in AAA, it is an improvement from 30% last year in Rochester. Hopefully that trend continues.
I don't understand why the Nationals would trade Abrams. He's good and under control. The Nats should keep him, bring up Seaver King when he's ready, and sign one or more free agents this winter. We can't keep trading proven players for prospects. This would (already has) result(ed) in endless rebuilding.
ReplyDeleteThis is my thought exactly. Plus, if Abrams keeps looking like a star (or even just a very good hitter) and the team looks like it has a window of opportunity with some decent pitching acquisitions, he is going to be more likely to stick around when he's no longer under team control.
DeleteThe last time the Nats started their window of opportunity was when they got what were basically two can't-miss prospects in consecutive years. That is not something that just happens, and lucking onto two stars at once again seems to me like a situation where you push the gas asap. Stop trying to build some future perfect team and build with what you know works.
You never know what will happen the rest of the season, and obviously adjust accordingly, but we're at the point where we need to seriously consider changing the plan based on unexpected upside, which I guess is not something we're used to doing here in Washington.
Because someone might as well say it... while Abrams, King, Willits etc... are Shortstops, there is no law that says they cant be moved to other positions on the field if their bats can carry the load. You do not have to trade any of these guys just because "they play the same position."
ReplyDeleteYou make trades because you have some roster defect that can't be solved internally. To me, CJ's offensive production would be extremely difficult to replace. I don't think we have an internal replacement for that. If we think Seaver King can hit MLB pitching.. you just make a spot on the field for him. If he can field SS, he can field 3B, 2B or OF. Assuming you can't get CJ to move, which would be my preference.
That said, if there's some sense CJ doesn't want to stay here, or that ownership doesn't want to pay him... well then, yeah, you're listening to offers and you probably want real pitching for him. Because that's another thing we don't have.
Coaches in high school and college often play their best athlete at shortstop. The positions they ultimately play in professional baseball tends to be sorted out later. A surplus of shortstops is a very good thing, not a problem at all.
ReplyDeleteThey also will play their best hitter who can hang at SS at SS. It's just what you do. You start there and you get moved off of it when it's clear you shouldn't be there.
Delete"Oops: All Shortstops" certainly seems like a pretty strong infield.
Delete