Monday Quickie

There isn't much to talk about today news wise. Why post then? Good question. I suppose it's to keep the comment threads fresh. New week, start anew.

I suppose the biggest news not covered is that the Nats reached contracts with all their arbitration eligible players. The Nats seemingly HATE arbitration. While that may be overblown it doesn't help the Nats management that the first guy to take them to arbitration (John Lannan) was summarily demoted and the second guy (Jerry Blevins) was given the boot in favor of Matt denDekker and a depleted pen. (No on said the Nats were sensible about it). Luckily no worries for this year and everyone has signed their fair contracts offered.

With those in place the payroll is more in focus, the Nats currently sitting at 145 million. Basically the halfway point between those hoping the Nats would keep it up near 160 and those fearing the Nats would drop it down to 130. Of course the off-season isn't over yet. The Nats have been rumored partners in trade or as a team interested in an FA OF. This makes sense if they are willing to give up on MAT, shifting Revere to be a fantastic 4th OF. Papelbon (11M) is still on the roster out of necessity, as is the the hinted guy they would potentially trade to replace, Wilson Ramos. Remember, we've talked about it a couple times but the catcher situation sets the Nats up having to go into next off-season looking for a catcher in FA or trade. The Nats don't usually play the game that way so a trade for a catcher still might be in the cards.

What do I think? (and since I nailed the Storen deal timing I must have some super powers) I think the Nats are pretty much done. I think they sit on everyone and try to get a rehabbing pitcher (Lincecum, Josh Johnson) for peanuts to stick in AAA for depth and potential. That's pretty much it. I don't think they bother for an OF now. The free agents are going to be too expensive or will lack game-changing ability. I can't see the Nats spending a bunch, even just for a year, to get slightly better. Trades won't happen unless a team doesn't ask for much in return. The Nats are very much like a fan when it comes to their prospects (I think it's a combo of Lerner loving the long-term cheap investment aspect and Rizzo over-trusting his own judgments). Deals have to be pretty damn good for them to give up a minor leaguer that they even remotely care about. Other teams are more reasonable (though these numbers are dwindling) and will end up with the Cargos of the world. I don't think they deal Papelbon because teams are only going to pay 80 cents on the dollar for him and Rizzo wants a fair trade based on talent.

But we'll see. As I keep saying - plenty of time left. Things happen.

Side note here on Ian Desmond. Yes, he made the wrong decision not taking the Nats extension. But that's a total hindsight thing. At the time he was poised to make a lot more and it took a season where he was batting .214 / .261 with 11 homers a week into August to kill that. There was nothing telling anyone he'd suddenly become the worst offensive SS in the league for 75% of 2015. If there was, forget the extension, the Nats would have probably traded him rather than have him drag the team down. No one saw it coming, but it came and here we are.

Where does he end up now? Tampa is an interesting place. If he was willing to take less money he could find himself situated very close to where he lives full-time (Sarasota) something that has to have great appeal. And the only guy standing in his way is the "He's really good!... I mean he's a great bargain!... I mean he's at value, that's something!" sabrmetric favorite Brad Miller.  Other teams may want him at a different position. Detroit in the OF. Houston at 3rd. 

How did Ian end up in this bad spot? Just in general who had a SS situations in 2015 that even 2015 Desmond might have improved? 

Padres - signed Alexi Ramirez because I assume they don't care about winning.
Baltimore - locked into JJ Hardy unfortunately for them
White Sox - waiting on Tim Anderson, probably for 2017, don't want a long term FA blocking him
Brewers - tanking with a new GM
Dodgers - Corey Seager taking over
Rangers - locked into Elvis Andrus worse than Baltimore is locked into Hardy
Pirates - ummm oddly secure sticking with Jordy Mercer for some reason. Good luck with that
Reds - tanking
Cubs - traded erratic Castro, Russell taking over.
Indians - Lindor taking over
Mariners - Ketel Marte taking over
Angels - traded for Andrelton Simmons
Mets - signed Asdrubal
Phillies - tanking

and a couple other trade/FA created issues
Rays - fine in 2015 but let Asdrubal walk, see above
Rockies - fine in 2015 but traded Tulo, have Reyes now but he could be in legal trouble
Braves - fine in 2015 but traded Simmons, tanking

At this point it becomes more of a coin flip whether Ian, staying as he was - bad hitting with power, decent D, would be helpful. These unnamed teams signing him would be really expecting that he would get better.

Fully half the league could have used Ian. But four tanking teams and five rookies coming up this year (or next) really cut down the demand pool. Ian went from 14 potential suitors (taking out locked ins and Colorado which didn't start FA needing a SS) to 5. At that point you can be boxed out and Ian was by a couple trades (Miller, Simmons), a commitment to bad player (Mercer), and a FA on the market who would be much cheaper and not much worse (Cabrera). At that point it comes down to one team either deciding to pay you or not. The Padres didn't. (The lost draft pick here isn't helping now that "winning the prospect lotto" is a praised rebuilding strategy) Now Ian is left hoping that either Reyes can't play most of the season (and the Rockies care about winning enough to sign Ian) or the Rays are willing to give him something fair while being able to see Miller is nothing but a bench player. Or else we're looking at a one-year challenge deal somewhere, at a good deal less than his qualifying offer.

Pulling on the comment thread

Some stuff on things I saw in the comment thread on the Drew Storen/Ben Revere's

Ben Revere doesn't just single - he steals bases! 
True and we had a little back and forth in the comments about it. Some think we should try to incorporate his SB into his SLG. I prefer to just take his hitting as is and add a "speed" adjustment during discussions. Why? Doing the former ignores a big chunk of why SLG is important. It drives in runners from non-scoring position. My guess is that WAR (at least the offensive part) does a pretty good job of factoring in SBs.

for example here is Nick Markakis' 2015 line
.296 / .370 / .376
and Ben Revere
.306 / .342 / .377

Nick walked more and had a tiny bit more pop (might I add "Ha ha Braves"). So Nick should probably have more offensive value despite the small disadvantage in average. However, according to fangraphs Nick's offensive stat was 4.2. Revere's was 6.2.  Baseball Reference's difference isn't that big (2.5 to 2.7) but also shows an advantage for Revere. That difference is all about the speed.

Of course our question is more about Revere vs MAT. So what was MATs offensive contribution last year? Both Fangraphs and BRef had him in the negative values. So the short of it is Revere should be a nice line-up improvement over 2015 MAT. The questions that linger are does the defensive difference (Great vs surprisngly bleh) combined with the potential improvement of MAT (and probably very slight age-related drop for Revere) make MAT the better bet for 2016? Also there's the question of "disruptive baserunning" but I can't answer that.

MAT can't possibly match Revere offensively!
I said upping his average to ~.240 and taking some more walks should make them a wash offensively.  Let's see how right that may be.

If he were to hit let's say .243 -  his OBP would be up to let's say .295. If he takes a few more walks - 5 to 10 - let's say 8 more. His OBP is around .308. That's not that close to where Revere should be in the .330-.335 range.* But he doesn't have to match Revere's OBP because he slugs a lot better. So let's say he also hits a couple more doubles and homers. Fair, right? Hits 3 more 2B, another 3B, and 2 more homers... his SLG is around .395.  Revere should be around .365 in my guess. What's a .243 / .308 / .395 line worth? My best guess is that it put him around the 0 line for offensive contribution. So Revere, even though he's expected to be a little worse overall than he was in 2015, should be a step better.

Ok so looks like I was wrong. Very minor improvements across the board will not make it a wash. However any single major step up assuming very minor improvements elsewhere probably would. If MAT can hit .260, that probably does it. If he can take 20+ more walks, that probaby would do it. If he can hit 25 doubles and 20 homers, that definitely does it. And if he can make a step up across the board - forget about it - Revere is in the dust.

The gamble the Nats could be taking is against the chance that MAT won't just simply have a very slightly better "used to it now" season, but will actively improve.

How about the move to contact hitting. It did wonders for the Royals!
Yes the Royals led the league in contact (81.9%) and they were dead last in K% (15.9%) But they didn't exactly dominate offensively (6th in RS in AL) and there isn't much evidence that over a season this matters much. Who was 2nd best in both? The A's, a decidedly mediocre offensive team. Who was also up there? The Braves the worst team offensively in baseball. Who swung and missed the most? The Cubs and Astros. You might have seen them in the playoffs.

So if it doesn't translate into regular season success more than any other method, could contact hitting give you and advantage in the playoffs? Perhaps. It might. But the difference would be slight and just getting better hitters of any type is probably more impactful.

The Nats didn't "screw over" Drew Storen
This is about impressions, not facts. It's true other teams often add bullpen arms and displace guys who do perfectly well to strengthen the overall pen. It's also true that it doesn't seem like we hear about guys getting "screwed over" in those situations (though trust me - it is being said about Andrew Miller) For me I say it because I never bought into the Nats talk about "well this is how we can make our team better so we are doing it" To me it's always felt like "we don't trust you despite the fact that you probably earned some level of trust based on your performance". They could have dealt for a non-closers (Clippard, Soria, Jepsen and Lowe were all traded). They didn't. You might not feel this way. That's fine. Both are valid. But if I feel it, I can totally get Drew feeling it. Though again - he needs to work past that and he didn't.

What about Tyler Clippard? 
In theory it could happen. It seems like Tyler wants to go back to the Mets and the Mets want him but Sandy only wants to guarantee a year and Tyler is waiting him out to try to get two. If the Nats were to sweep in with a deal he likes for two then he probably goes. He does fit into the Nats pen nicely giving them that proven set-up arm. However, the Nats have already spent more than they ever have in FA for RP and Clippard isn't cheap.  I don't see it.

What happens to Tyler Moore?
He's got a paid contract. He's sitting on the bench unless he's traded. denDekker is the odd man out here.

Could this be a set-up for another trade? 
Sure it could be. I think the Nats would love to get a cost-controlled catcher or another cost-controlled starting pitcher. A cost controlled OF, while probably helpful in the playing field, is less a concern because they now have 4 paid OF through 2017.  Not that I think the Nats only think of cost control, but I do think it's a big deal for them as they like to work from a place of "can if we want to" rather than "have to", which is where they might be with Strasburg leaving, and where they definitely will be with Ramos coming to his FA year.

So in other words - I don't see a Cargo here. Maybe a Norris or a Matt Moore. But hey - I could be wrong. 

*MAT was 6th worst in qualifying batters in OBP. So he's got a lot of ground to make up. 10th worst was Desmond. Worst was Ramos. But Nats overall looked ok because Bryce was first and the difference between him and 7th best was the same as the difference between Ramos and 70th worst. Bryce is awesome.

The midnight trade for Ben Revere

The Nats traded Drew Storen for Ben Revere late on Friday night. Let's skip the formalities of a punchy little opening paragraph and get down to the analysis. 

Part 1 : The Nats lose Drew Storen.

Many, many fans are happy to see Drew Storen leave because the memories they have of Drew are among the worst in their Nats fandom. Game 5 in 2012. Game 2 in 2014. Pick a Mets game from this year. However let's put on our soulless automaton titanium outer shell for a moment and look at Drew Storen in his time with the Nats.

2010 : Good
2011 : Very Good
2012 : Great with an asterick
2013 : Bad
2014 : Phenomenal until...
2015 : Phenonenal until... (Part 2)

If we could separate it out you would see that the Nats got probably 250+ innings of great relief pitching from Storen. Like 270 innings of under 3.00 ERA pitching with a WHIP around 1.000. That is hard to replace as we all should have learned from last year's trade of Tyler Clippard. True, the Nats plan this year, bring in some intriguing veteran arms, is better than their plan last year, "it'll all work out somehow!", but it's still trading some level of stability for instability.

What level of stability? We don't know.  The only bad season Storen had is the season when he was unceremoniously replaced as closer, when it took him a good four months to get his head screwed back on straight about the demotion. This season would have a similar feel to that one. Given that he already started tanking to end last year it was fair to think that level of stability was not that high up there. I think you could expect Storen to be back to normal at some point next year, which is better than hoping you find a replacement arm as good as he has been, but it's not so much better that you can't deal him away and feel ok about it.

Really what should have happened is Drew should have been dealt and someone that was more much stable should have been brought in, but stability is expensive and hard to get. The Nats made a play for O'Day and fell short. They poked around at Chapman but didn't make a deal. They tried as much as they wanted to, but again the Nats fall to cheaper value question marks in the pen. I wish them luck.

As for Storen I wish him luck too. I've said a couple times that Drew really did get a raw deal from the Nats. He was a great closer in 2012 and Davey, in a rare misstep, set him up to fail.  You can try to argue that point but you'd be wrong. There was no reason to bring in someone else after that season but Boras needed a landing spot for a client and the Nats are always willing to help Boras out. That was a total screw job. Then after working his way back to the pen Drew found himself in the midst of a season where he had 29 saves in 31 chances with a 1.73 ERA and he got replaced again. I don't see how you can't think that's another screw job. He manned up and didn't let the 2014 mistakes mess with his head or the dealing away of one of his better friends and had an All-Star season. He deserved his shot at redemption.

This is not to say Drew is blameless. The 2013 and 2015 meltdowns were both inexcusable and while I cast nearly zero blame on him for 2012, he gets the full brunt of it for 2014. He was part of the problem. But it's clear to me that the organization did as much to make Drew's time here a mess, as he did. I hope he does great in Toronto and has a decent post-season performance. Perhaps saving a Wild Card game because of course the Yankees will have won the East in my hope.

Part 2 : The Nats get Ben Revere.

The Nats, in Michael Taylor, had a question mark in CF.  In his first full season MAT played a great CF, ran the bases well, but only had flashes of belonging in the majors at the plate. Not quite young enough to be a true prospect anymore, the 158 Ks stood out as a big warning sign that perhaps he'd never be quite ready. So while the Nats were set basically everywhere else offensively* the Nats could do something in the OF. They could add a bat that they felt secure about and move MAT to a 4th OF slot. Maybe he forces his way back in, maybe he doesn't but the Nats in that scenario ensure themselves of starting 2016 with 3 major league outfielders.

Instead they got Ben Revere.

Ben Revere is just slightly more of a starter than Michael Taylor. His value is all in his offensive speed as he makes contact, smacks the ball into the ground, and creates base hits for himself. Singles, really. A lot of singles. 312 in the past two years, more than anyone in baseball. He then uses his speed on the basepaths to steal and score and otherwise create havoc. But he doesn't do much else.

His speed doesn't translate to great defense as you think it would making him merely a serviceable outfielder. He has no power (4th lowest isoSLG in the majors last year) and he doesn't take walks (in bottom 30 for BB%). If he's not singling to get on base he is giving you absolutely nothing.

The good news is that there isn't any reason to think he won't single to get on base.  He's not particularly old (28 in May). His various speed stats don't indicate any sharp declines. And his contact rate is still high. It is dropping so maybe he doesn't give you an empty .305 but an empty .295 instead but it will be enough to still be equal or better to the average expected season from MAT. Of course MAT has a greater spread of possibilities and is more likely to have a very good season than Revere who almost assuredly won't. Really all the Nats have done is replace one type of 3/4 OF (Power hitting, great fielding, strike-out machine) with another (super speedy singly Joe)

Of course that is what we thought with Span coming into DC at about the same age and he picked it up a notch. Maybe Revere will. Then again Denard had good offensive years, in other forms, before coming to the Nats.  Revere really hasn't.  Or maybe the Nats will platoon the two, although platoons can be risky as taking days off can have different effects on players.

In the end the problem the Nats solved here was not the one of making sure they have 3 like-to-have-them-starting major league OFs on the squad in 2016. It was the one of making sure they have proper OF depth. Matt denDekker is no longer a possible long term replacement option. Instead it's whichever of Ben Revere or Michael Taylor (or Clint Robinson if Zimm is healthy). That's a better space to be in. So even if the starting team isn't appreciably better the team as a whole is.


I think the Nats are done. I don't think they can deal for a C. I don't think they bother signing an OF. I think Papelbon is here unless someone makes what is essentially a fair deal for an All-Star talent closer. I think this puts the payroll at a middle ground between trying to be the best 160 and we are 2nd tier 130. Which is fine. But we'll see. There's still over a month till pitchers and catchers and nearly two until Spring Training. Plenty of time and a lot of assets out there. Let's see if 2016 can be the all-in season 2015 never got to be.


*Ramos, while set, is probably the only other place you could replace. SS is not set with an individual but it's clearly a set Danny to Trea plan

Some notes from yesterday's presser

That's what they call it in the biz. Pressers.

"When the lights are bright, this guy seems to put his best at bat"

The Post focused on Murphy's K-rate which was a MLB low 7.1% last year. Even if we buy the connection - there are two follow-up questions, is a low K-rate necessarily good and can Murphy keep up this low K-rate.

To answer the first...  eh. The next lower K-rate for a batter was held by Andrelton Simmons who was awful. After that though came Buster Posey, Michael Brantley, and Jose Altruve. So I looked at the past five years and found... nothing conclusive. Not striking out, even at an extreme level doesn't really seem to help you out.

Can he keep it up? As far as the K-rate goes I'd guess no. He pretty much was a 13.5% guy from 2012-2014. But I'm not sure that means anything either. Last year was an odd year for Murphy. He dropped his K-rate and his BB-rate dropped too. That's not unexpected assuming you think he's trying to put the ball in play more. However he bumped his power up, which is a bit strange. Well maybe he was hitting the ball harder? Well at the same time though his BABIP dropped considerably from past years. And let's not forget he became a much stronger pull hitter. Put it all together and you have a year that gets Murphy results but in a way he never got it before.

If you're asking me if he can keep up production. I would bet on Murphy not walking and not striking out. I'd bet on him hitting around .285 with 15 homers. However I don't know exactly how he'll do it. So if you're asking me if he can be that tough to strike out again, I guess I'd say no.

Oh, but what if we don't buy the connection in the article. What if we take it to mean hitting well in big spots. We all know he killed it in the playoffs... until he didn't.  When the bright lights were brightest - the World Series - he actually hit only .150 / .320 / .150.  Ouch. But before that he was a golden God and he overall had a great post-season.

Career wise it's a mixed bag. Late & Close - terrible. High Leverage - meh. 2 outs, RISP - great! There isn't any pattern here (which is what we usually expect to see - no pattern).

Basically if you take the comment to be he'll do well in big spots... I don't see how you can believe that. He'll do as he does. Fine.

"I’m most comfortable with, whichever one they plug me in that day, that’s my favorite position"

Nice to say but probably not true. He hasn't played a ton of innings anywhere outside of 2nd since 2011 so we can't say anything with a lot of confidence but it does seem he is not comfortable at all at 2nd. His range looks bad no matter which defensive measure you like and he makes a ton of errors. He seems a bit less error prone at 3rd base (and possibly ok in the OF but that's been years) so he's probably most comforatble there, despite what he likes to say.  Of course he did get better it appears at 2nd but it's still not good and he's not getting younger.

I can't actually put down the quote. Maybe he really doesn't care. However, there's a good chance he should be playing 3rd. 

Boswell : Rizzo believes he completed the last essential part of the Nats’ offseason

I'm not sure that's true. Rizzo will say whatever he feels like is the best thing to say at the time. At best, I can take it to be 90% true. As Boswell writes - they got their pen arms. They got their lefty bat. They don't have any obvious holes to fill from a departing player from last year. They could go out there as is. What's the 10% then? Trading Storen. That has to happen and don't tell me it doesn't.  Papelbon we'll get to in a second, but Storen has to go. Boswell also catches the important caveat to what he's saying. The Nats don't have to act but can. They can fiddle for a new pitcher or another OF or something else.

Now personally I think they Nats still NEED to do more. There's that Storen piece and I'd argue given the injury history of this Nats team (Murphy missed 20 games 2 years ago 30 games last year) the Nats need another playable bat and preferably one in the OF since we don't know if MAT will turn the corner. But this is me. I can see Boz's take on what Rizzo's is saying here. I just hope it's not actually the truth of Rizzo's opinion.

“And I’ve talked to Pap.”... According to one person present, Rizzo spread his arms, looked to the heavens and said, “Thank you!”

Papelbon will be here next year. I've been saying this for a while. The Nats put themselves in a terrible spot where they have two guys on the team they don't really want and can't feel secure about. Given Storen's reaction again to pitching in the 8th, you can't keep both. But given you didn't trust him enough that you brought in a "real closer" twice now, you can't trade Papelbon and keep Storen. But given Papelbon choked Bryce, you can't keep Papelbon and trade Storen. But given Storen's reaction again to pitching the 8th...

The way out of this endless circle* is if you CAN keep Papelbon and trade Storen because Bryce says you can.  Short leash on Pap, no tolerance, and making it clear that he's only here on Bryce's good graces, but it can work. And that's what I think will happen unless someone makes a great offer for the guy.

*or trading both but then you have to bring in someone else completely reliable - tough to do. 

Maybe something? Maybe

Ladson says Murphy will take his physical today, maybe have a presser tomorrow.  I generally wait for the Post to confirm to really believe it but seems plausible enough. At the same time Heyman is back to tell us the Nats are looking to trade for a catcher. Does that still fit with the Harper Conspiracy That's Not Really A Conspiracy Theory More Like Just Boring Account Balancing Theory? That depends on the target.

For the most part catchers do not make a lot of money in baseball. Even Jon LuCroy is looking at a mere 4 million dollar payday in 2016 (before cashing in in FA presumably). So say the Nats bring in a Derek Norris type (should make around 3 mill this year) and pawn off Storen along with the requisite prospects. That would fit the bill of dumping salary to bring in Murphy.  Even if they go a little higher (say Devin Mesoraco territory of 5+ million) if you presume Ramos is part of the deal that's a few million leaving as well.

Really the only way this doesn't work is if somehow the Nats are bringing in Russel Martin or the trade for whoever didn't include Storen and/or Ramos. THAT would be something that should signal that the 2015 payroll was fine and is likely to be roughly repeated.

Why would the Nats go after a catcher? We talked earlier about how Ramos was a good enough defender, and just young enough and cheap enough, that you probably ride him out for 2016. But it is very unlike Rizzo / Lerners to not have a sense of the potential budget for an upcoming year. If the Nats do ride it out with Ramos, they are essentially saying they will delve into the FA market next year for a catcher. They will simply have to because there will be no starter available to them.  Jose Lobaton has drifted away from being a potential one-year stop gap and the catchers in the minors are a few years off if that. That presents an unknown and the Nats don't like unknowns.

What is the last FA signing that you felt "Oh the Nats need to get an X"?  Probably the first LaRoche signing right? They like to have a reasonable plan in place (say Espinosa at 2nd, Turner at SS; or before 2015 Roark as the 5th starter) and then build on that if necessary. Right now they have no reasonable plan for catcher in 2017 and no reason to think they will have one by the end of the year. They have a plan in place to replace Strasburg (Giolito) and I'm sure they think they can find someone to replace Papelbon/Storen (if either are still here - Kelley or Rivero are probably the two in their minds right now), but Ramos? Nothing. So the way the Nats are run they need to bring in someone they feel could start in 2017 for no reason other than a sense of cost certainty.

We're going to have a fun time soon seeing some signing break the dam that's holding back this glut of FA. Let's see how the Nats position themselves before then. 

Monday Quickie - nothings happening

I was going to say that I expect a lot of "Nats want to deal Papelbon" and "Teams still very interested in Storen" type stories right now. Why? Because under my conspiracy theory they can't close the Murphy deal until one of those things are done. That's the only way the money will work itself out. Here we are about 10 days since Daniel Murphy was "signed" and still no official word. Coincidence? Probably but I THINK NOT!

With Jon Heyman drifting in the wind, we don't have our usual Nats/Boras outlet so it's left to John Morosi to start us off with a Storen still to be dealt side note. Keep your eye out because at this point there is no holiday excuse anymore. Murphy should be gettting physicaled today and announced officially tomorrow and if not, then someone is dragging their feet. Could be Murphy just enjoying a long holiday, but where's the fun in thinking that.

Will there be another move for the Nats? There are so many FAs still left you'd have to think so, and with each passing day the chance for the Nats to grab a short term deal on a solid player goes up. Of course - that goes for every other team, too.

Wait

See.

Happy new year!

Stephen Drew?

If you are creating a good bench you don't have any pieces on it that are one-trick ponies, unless they do that one-trick about better than anyone. Of course that usually only holds for defensive specialists, or speedy players, because if you are a guy who has pop or hits for average about better than anyone, teams will try to find spots for you - even if you do nothing else. (see : Trumbo, Mark)

Stephen Drew can still (probably) field adequately. He can hit with power from the left-side of the plate. His isoSLG last year would have been second amongst all SS and his projected power is around Top 5 for the position. Given those skills he makes a passable back-up MI on the bench (while Espinosa is starting and Turner is in AAA, waiting out his service time... I mean "honing his skills") and a fantastic last MI on the bench (when Turner is up and Espy sits). Yes, yes Drew is a Boras client. And yes yes Drew was drafted by Rizzo when he was in Arizona. Both these things helped get him here I'm sure. But if he's played correctly there really doesn't have to be a downside here.

If played correctly...

So how do you play him incorrectly? Well Dusty, known to favor veteran players, could put Drew in place above Espinosa (better in just about everyway, which tells you where Drew is at). Drew shouldn't be playing everyday, not even as an injury replacement, or a stop-gap. Not when you have a better option and the Nats do. Scarier than that would be the potential logical extension where if Baker puts Drew at SS and the Nats are doing moderately well and he's not god awful, that he stays with him not only over Espy but over Turner as well. Turner is the future and is very likely to hit very well in his "get Nats another FA year" turn in Syracuse. If so, there won't be any reason to keep him down but you can picture that situation arising.

Of course no sense worrying about things that haven't happened yet (Like say the Murphy deal falling through and Drew being pencilled in as the 2nd base starter). I see how this can work out. I'm going to assume that's how it's going to go.

Who does this most effect? Espinosa, certainly. He will at least lose some at bats versus RHP and possibly lose his role entirely. We hope not but the potential is there. Wilmer Difo, thought to have a role in the 2016 Nats, is almost certainly now pushed back into AAA to try to fight the fade into organizational depth (hey! It's the ghost of Tony Renda!). And the aforementioned Tyler Moore may finally, mercifully lose his spot on the bench, seeing as Drew offers the same pop, but can also play in the field as well. Of course Moore does hit from the other side of the plate and today would still make my expected* OD roster (bench : Lobaton, Clint, den Dekker, Drew and Moore)

All in all, this is much like every deal the Nats have made this offseason. It makes them a little bit better. That all adds up. Of course they got worse to start FA and still have a couple moves to make that will do more of that, at least on the field, so we still have to hold back any evaluations until later.

*not to be confused with my preferred OD roster.

Why Murphy?

While we sit here and wonder when exactly this deal will be finalized* the big question that sits out there is why would the Nats go with Daniel Murphy.

The obvious first answer is that the Nats need another MI. That's simply the truth. They could go with Danny Espinosa and he might be fine. Certainly his defense will be solid if not better. But man, weren't you around for the second half of the year? The .206 / .259 / .346 second half? Danny is a great defender and a source of some pop. But he also can't hit and strikes out too much and was terrible in 2014 and made grown men cry in 2013. Add it up and he's a great bench player but a bad gamble as a starter.

Daniel Murphy is a good gamble as a starter. Consistently providing a level of offense that offsets his mediocre? poor? not terrible? defense. He will hit .280-.290.  He will hit for just enough power. He will make contact. Defensive issues can be hidden, worked around, camoflauged, or you can get lucky and just have a year where the balls aren't hit in the areas that matter. Offensive issues rarely disappear like that. That's why Danny is a bench player and Murphy is a starter.

But still Yunel Escobar hit .314 with almost "just enough power". Why not just stick with Yunel Escobar?  Well Yunel Escobar in a matter of just two years, has seemingly proved himself worse in the field than Murphy. Whereas Murphy is ill-suited for 2B but occasionally passable in other less demanding positions, like third base, Escobar just spent a year proving he wasn't even suited for third. At the plate 2015 Yunel was essentially a match for Murphy, but he is also historically not this good of a hitter. The assumption has to be that average will drop and if things revert back to "normal" as opposed to a middle ground... well Yunel would be an negative everywhere. Should we worry about such a drop? For 33 year old Yunel who has collapsed on the field, I'd say yes, yes we should. Murphy, 31 in April, doesn't have the same age issue.

Espinosa is a gamble. Murphy is security. Escobar can't be relied on. Murphy is stability.

So... great?  Well there is another side. Like I said Murphy is ill-suited at 2B. You'd want to play him somewhere else. LF, 1B, 3B. What would be best for the Nats is Rendon at 2B and Murphy at 3B but I think the reverse will happen. While Murphy gives the Nats the LHB and contact stats they need, he doesn't give them the patience or power that they need too. He doesn't walk and his power is merely ok. When playing second he's an imperfect solution. Also we must consider that the Nats paying a premium for a post-season that was almost certainly a fluke. If the Nats are a strict budget team (we'll find out this year) then that could hamper improvements in the upcoming seasons.

My feeling is that Murphy, for 2016, is a solid addition to the team but should not be a singular one. He is not the impact bat I think is needed with the injury risk this offense continues to be. It's doubtful the Nats will now pay in money or prospects to add an all-in-one impact bat (if one is even still available) so perhaps they will find a way to get a complementary bat who provides a little patience and pop without breaking the bank (Dexter Fowler?) or someone that will provide one of those things in spades (trade for Khris Davis?). At three years, the contract doesn't bother me at all. I like it as he's likely to give value all three years. If you are building a "Bryce Time" team that contract means he slates in perfectly.

If this ends the Nats dealings for the off-season then it's bad, but there is no reason to think it will. This is one brick. Let's see what Rizzo builds.

*My guess continues to be once Papelbon or Storen are dumped to some team that will eat that salary. I found the Escobar trade then Kelley deal goes through timing suspicious and assume all Nats trades need some sort monetary balance.  So I will only believe that this won't be the case when it is actually not the case

Merry Christmas!

Here's Gio in a Santa hat from 2011 

Look at him! Just a baby!

I'll probably have some more posts between then and Christmas about movies or such. (Here's my list of what to watch in general from last year) but nothing on the Nats unless they do something, which I doubt.

Anyway again - Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! Delightful Days Off!

Monday Quickie : Bum Phillips

So apparently Brandon Phillips won't be coming to the Nats. It's not entirely clear to me what the hold up was. Well I know it was money / years but apparently it fell on the Reds and not the Nats to figure that out? I would get it if he told the Nats "Hey, give me an extra year at 15 mill and I'll waive the no trade clause" but there was no indication that was the case. Instead it was the Reds talking to him. The only way I see that working out is if they Reds would redo his current contract in some phony baloney way to pay him more NOW, like say add a team option to the end and add a bonus for re-signing? Give him a piece of the team? Heyman suggested an extension was needed but why then didn't we get him talking to the Nats?

Honestly I don't get what was supposed to happen here. As it was being explained as "Nats and Reds have deal. Reds have to convince Phillips to waive no trade. He may want incentives from Reds to do so" That seems odd to me. Help explain this based on what we actually saw reported.

Other than that nothing of note. We're pretty close to Christmas now so I don't expect much of anything for a week or so. We're about half way through the offseason (Christmas is usually basically half-way) and fittingly the Nats are half-way done with a complete bullpen overhaul. They have the all the minor pieces in place. The easy stuff has been done. Now all they have to get rid of Papelbon and Storen and bring in a lock down closer in their place.

The secondary issue of an outfield bat has also not been addressed but the market is still flooded with talent. Upton, Gordon and Cespedes are still out there as top tier guys. As are solid 1-2 year player types the likes of Fowler, Byrd, Parra. Good 4th OF types like Austin Jackson, and de Aza remain, platoon guys like Wil Venable, risks like Denard Span. The Nats, like pretty much everyone else, have waited out this market and it hasn't gotten away from anyone yet. There was thought Heyward could start the dominoes falling but more likely it'll take 1 or 2 more guys going to set things in motion. Early January I bet, will be a busy time.

So the Nats aren't nearly done, (or more accurately they really shouldn't be nearly done) but aren't in a bad position either. Stay patient.

Phillips in a nutshell

What I wrote on Wednesday still holds true. I would lean toward not getting Phillips, but it's a money thing.  Since it looks like it is happening - here are the biggest questions in increasing order of importance.


How much are the Nats going to pay him?

Brandon Phillips is set to make 13 million next year, 14 the year after. This is probably more than he'll be worth but it's not a terrible overpay. However, some people are saying that to get Phillips to agree to this deal the pot has to be sweetened. The Nats would have to pay him more or extend him.

I don't buy it. I don't even want to take it to one of those mid-aisle scanners to see how much it is.  The fact that he supposedly gave a hometown discount to the Reds, which spurs on a lot of the "have to give him more" talk, is his problem. It shouldn't be the Nats. In fact by "correcting" for the fact he'd have to move, he would essentially turn his contract into a huge bargain for the Reds and a bigger burden for the Nats. Why agree to that? Don't do it Nats. Open market today he's getting paid more than enough. Stick to those guns.


Who are the Nats giving up for him?

The talk is "several minor leaguers". Given that it's more than one I'm going to guess it doesn't include anyone you may care about. Of course that takes Giolito and Turner off the table, but also probably sweeps Cole, Difo, Fedde, Lopez, Voth and Robles into a napkin as well.  Best I see included might be Drew Ward (20 but stalling) or one of their myriad of future back-up catchers.

The truth is though, outside of Turner, none of these guys are needed for 2016. With Exodus Part 2 coming up after this year, I care about making a run now more than anything so if they do give up one of those latter 6, whatever. I can deal with it.


Does he make the Nats better?

Yes. We discussed this the other day. His consistency assumes a better offensive season than you can expect from Espinosa and he's a very good fielder so you don't lose as much in that swap as you would for other replacements (see Murphy, Daniel).  Anything that makes the team better is worthwhile. Technically you will lose a LHB when Turner comes up and replaces Espinosa (This is my expected Nats infield - Espinosa at SS until Turner gets called up mid-May) but Espinosa wasn't much of a lefty bat to begin with.

Also the secondary function of the trade - pushing Danny to the bench, gives the Nats a nice solid bench player.


How will he affect the Nats spending the rest of the offseason?

Ah - now here's the kicker. What is the Nats payroll? I've talked considerably that they may actually be around the amount they'd like to spend for the year already and they only have money to spend if they consider Papelbon and Storen gone with minimal salary absorbed. If that's the case then Phillips may eat a big chunk of the Nats payroll leaving them unable to say - deal for Cargo or even sign a Parra. If they don't put anything in for Papelbon/Storen then they might have a little money, say about 10 million, left to play with. If they expect to eat half of Papelbon/Storen then Phillips uses it all.

Phillips is a good player but only makes the Nats slightly better in 2016. If they Nats only have around 10-15 million to spend I think they could make a higher impact move.  So really whether the Phillips move is good or not doesn't come down to him, it comes down to the salary the Nats are paying and the payroll the Lerners are willing to shell out for 2016. If Phillips is essentially the last piece, because of some combination of his salary going up and the payroll going down, then it's a bad move. If he is just another cog and a closer or good OF bat is still on the horizon, then it's a good move. We can't know. But Rizzo must.

More Movies

Nats are resting. Hallmark is not

On the Twelfth Day of Christmas
X(Mas)-Factor: Mandated
Kids acting: One moppet in a soup kitchen scene.
Watchability: Background noise approved
"Hey it's"! : Big fan of "Breakout Kings"? Love "Skulls 2"? No? Then absolutely no one. Rare for a non-cheapy movie.

This is the rare Christmas movie that actually made me say " that was clever", but before we get to that let's get one thing clear right off the bat. The lead female is BONKERS. 10 years ago a friendquaintance offers her an emergency ride home for Christmas. They get caught in a snowstorm and afraid he won't get her home in time (apparently they have school until Christmas Eve at what I'll call Heathen U), he pulls over to the side of the road and shows her a fun Christmas time. Now I would be pretty mad at the guy for wasting hours building snowmen and riding sleds when I want to get home to my loving family, but such whimsical nonsense is irresistibly charming in these movies. She falls for him but he never comes back to school! Cut to modern day and she hears him on the radio and she's all like "THAT'S THE GUY I LOVE! MY SOULMATE!" It's been a decade, lady. A decade. "Hmm, I remember that guy. Maybe I should look him up" is a fine reaction. "I love him! I need to help him!" is stalker territory. I assume what we didn't see after the movie ends is the uncomfortable scene the next morning where she shows up on his front door in a wedding dress.

Anyway it's easy enough to get past that and once you do the story is allright. He has soured on Christmas. She remembers he loved Christmas and vows to fix that failing. That may seem a bit much, people do have other traits other than "love Chirstmas" that you might want to explore, but then you remember that is literally all she knows about him, so it makes sense. Now the clever part - she starts sending him secret Santa gifts and as he is new in town, his radio station manager tries to use this secret Santa mystery to drum up publicity. The manager calls the local paper to cover it and the paper assigns her to cover the story. So she's covering herself. See clever! (We're talking Hallmark movies here).

You may think "Hey isn't that a big conflict of interest?" Yep. But they address it and deal with it in a way that seems fair to me. So again good for the writer. You don't really have to closely follow the movie from that point to the point when he finds out she's the Secret Santa as it's just a slow steady progression to him getting to the endpoint of loving her and Christmas. But it's a light and easy as opposed to dull. Now if only his dream gift wasn't a girl bike from the early 70s.

I'll give it socks for Christmas. But no socks when you are a kid. Socks when you are an adult and you need socks and hey! These are pretty nice socks.


A Family for Christmas
X(Mas)-Factor: Low - a shoehorned Santa away from none at all
Kids acting: There, necessary, and not terrible
Watchability: I've seen better
"Hey it's"! : A titan of the genre, the woman I affectionally call Lacy Sherbert, Lacey Chabert

Santa's roles in these movies is all over the place. Sometimes he's just like US! Usually those are the "Santa's kids" movie where his son "Chris" or daughter "Holly" blah blah bah. Sometimes he's an integral moral center, sometimes just in need of help. In this movie he's basically an accidental genie. He asks Chabert if she has a Christmas wish and she doesn't answer but maybe kind of thinks of something and suddenly she's in an alternate reality. When she meets up with him in the alternate reality (he's the only one that knows what's going on naturally) he doesn't know why this happened or what exactly she can do to "get back". Basically it was her wish that did it. Jesus, Santa. If you have that kind of power where people can warp time and space by wishing something in their minds while next to you, maybe stay inside more.

Anyway, in the alternate reality she isn't a successful reporter with no ties about to take a big NY job. She's a supermom to 2 girls married to her old boyfriend, who decided not to go to SF for an internship 10 years ago (Hey! Review theme!). The overtone of "Mom" beats "career woman" is very strong here and almost derails the whole movie. She was seemingly a great TV reporter and that carries into her new life where she manages to get a chance at doing the same thing despite being stuck in her small town. At that point her husband almost screams "You want to work at something you loved at one point and are preternaturally good at, instead of stay at home all day taking care of your school aged children while I work!? You goddamn monster." but the movie has him pretty quickly reverse his stance and puts the onus back on her. Would she rather be a mom, or have any sort of career that wouldn't allow her to see your kids all the time. In a Hallmark Christmas movie that's not a choice.

Ah but the kicker. SPOILER! After making said decision she wakes up back in her old life. She runs to Santa again and he's like "we can't change the past only the future" to which she doesn't say "Didn't we just do that? And did you create children out of thin air only to rip them from existence?" but "I should follow my heart not my instincts" or whatever. So to show that she's on the right path now, she seemingly unnecessarily quits her reporter job maybe, then meets up with that ex-boyfriend who had contacted her at the movies start. They go off to have babies and to stop her from working because women raising kids and not having jobs is the true meaning of Christmas.

The movie isn't complete garbage because her family over job choice only existed in a dream and was, if we're being honest, out of nowhere and kind of crazily life altering for dream family. But still  it's all but explicit that good women choose mom stuff. Of course when your audience is a millions of moms and a soulless automaton that blogs about baseball, you don't worry about appealing to the automaton.

I give this 3 out of one dozen Christmas cookies made at home by mom because store bought cookies are for people with black, black hearts according to this movie. So maybe 9 out of 12 store bought cookies if you want to look at it that way.

Next Up : Brandon Phillips

This year I'll split up my Xmas movie stuff from the baseball stuff. That way it's easier for those that want to skip, to do so. Anything for you guys. I'll post movies in the afternoon.

 
The Nats are rumored to be interested in Brandon Phillips. He's a Red that played under Dusty. Those things might be related in one way (Dusty wants guys he knows) or another (media will just assume any Red who played under Dusty has the interest of the Nats) but it's out there. Do the Nats want him?

Yes - Phillips might be aging but he's still consistently provides close to average offense. In the past three years he's put up a .274 / .315 / .389 line, with a .704 OPS and hasn't really wavered. Danny Espinosa, who is pencilled in right now, has put up a .217 / .279 / .361 line (.640 OPS) and is a year removed from awful and two years removed from "shouldn't he be selling cars?" Brandon also doesn't strike out often, basically doing it half as often as Espinosa does.

No - But if Danny is "back to normal" (assuming last year in total was "normal") then he should provide virtually the same offense as Phillips.  Danny .719 OPS last year, Phillips .723.  Yes Danny will strikeout but that's part of his game. Other parts of his game are patience and power. Phillips' power is dying and he's not patient at all.  Brandon's more of a singles guy and gets more of his value through batting average.  Given a choice I like a guy who can work a bad pitcher into a walk or send a bad pitch over the fence than Singly Joes.

Yes - But Brandon Phillips is more than offense - he's defense too. He had been one of the best second basemen in the game in the last 00s and he's still a solid defender at the keystone.

No - But Danny is probably better there. Not much mind you but he probably had a better year there last year (defensive stats... you know how it is) and he's six years younger. Solid money is on Danny giving you better defense.

Yes - But will Danny play? Phillips is an extremely healthy guy. He's played 141 games or more 9 times in the last 10 seasons. One of the things the Nats lost with Desmond was stability. If you get Phillips you can feel pretty good about plugging him in and expecting him to start as long as you need/want him to. Espinosa hasn't played a full season in the majors since 2012.

No - But that one off season was 2014 and Phillips will be 35 (a young 35, but still) next year. At that age you start moving into the "they are old, they can get injured at any moment" part of their career. It's not that big an advantage.

Yes - But Phillips also gives you speed. 23 SBs last year (to only 3 CS). Danny, despite being over half a decade younger hasn't approached that since 2012.

No - But that's a product of the team. Nats were 14th in the NL in stolen bases last year and they aren't particularly a slow team. Danny might be able to steal more bases. We won't know until (if?)  Dusty unleashes the team

Yes - But Brandon is a proven veteran. The Nats lost two long time Nationals last year, includin Desmond, who was seen as a quiet clubhouse leader. They need to replace that dynamic.

No - But do they? It's not like that type of leadership kept this team playing at it's highest level.  Plus no one is saying Brandon is that type of guy. In fact, he seems to most as overly sensitive about how he is perceived outside the clubhouse causing him to be very sensitive about media matters.

Yes - But Dusty will control that. That's what he does.

No - But that, "overly sensitive to how he's perceived, very sensitive about media" is also who Dusty is. It may work but it may also help foster the paranoid "us vs everyone - fans, media, ownership" clubhouse attitude some of us fear Dusty can bring. Also Brandon Phillips also makes a ton of money. 13 Million next year. 14 million after that. It's not a long commitment but it is a pricey for a guy that's being argued as whether he's better for the team than Danny Espinosa (who will make around 3 Mill this year)

So....

I don't want Brandon Phillips because I don't want his contract. I think he's a slightly better bet to be decent than Danny. Brandon is consistent. Danny has not been. But I think you can get more improvement to the team spending that 13 million somewhere else. As for any attitude thing? Eh. I always prefer to judge a player when he gets where he's going. Sometime a change of location does wonders. New clubhouse, new city, Dusty at the helm? I'd at least give him a few months to see. But really I wouldn't because like I said - I don't want to pay him.

Now if it's the only way to dump Papelbon or Storen and get something worthwhile back? Ok. I can deal with that. But that's not what we've heard so far. We've heard prospects. In the end, I can't believe that this is the best deal out there for the Nats.

Christmas Movies

It begins (way late) My Blog. My Rules. You can always skip with your eyes and with button clicks. Biology and Technology working as one to avoid my obsession with bad holiday movies. It's your only hope, really. In fact I'm trying to come up with a biology + technology angle on a bad Christmas movie. Cyborg reindeer? I love it.

Run now.

Christmas Movie Reviews
Wish Upon a Christmas
X(Mas)-Factor: Like a mall before Halloween. Sparse but there.
Kids acting: Is this a kid? Is expressing little more than "I love Santa" acting?
Watchability: If you can stay awake, it's fine.
"Hey it's"! : Alan Thicke!  The younger daughter from "10 Things I hate about you"! (Yes yes she's Alex Mack and Ken Cosgrove's wife and like a half-dozen other things. Sorry. Mad Men was fine, but Julia Stiles dancing to Notorious BIG on a table is definitive cinema.)

Here's my guess. The original plot of the movie was a Lifetimeified "Up in the Air". This woman travels around and fires people as her job and she's good at it. She's forced to go to her hometown and do something similar to a factory there, but it turns out it is run by an ex-boyfriend. He teaches her the value of not being a corporate stooge. She teaches him how to not run a business into the ground. Add some magic with his kid wishing on star yada yada yada happily ever after. The end. Then someone told the writer what they really needed were Christmas movies to which the writer replied "I can make it a Christmas movie!" and sold! Everyone is happy except me.

What happens when you Christmasfy a movie? (1) Corporate sends you to fire people, not on a random day, but on Christmas Eve. No business would do this. Forget that it's unnecessarily mean it's not even practical. It's the holidays. Who's working? Not you, not them. Too many people would be out to judge the business and then fire people. But not in this world where ornament makers are in such demand, even with the business in trouble, that they are working literally up until Christmas. How does this work logistically? The time I've lost trying to figure it out... (2) The factory, instead of furniture or whatever, becomes an ornament factory. Seriously. Why not toys? Overdone? It's a Lifetime Christmas movie, an overdone plot point is not frowned upon but cheered. I suppose it was the best choice though if you didn't go toys. Can't be a nativity factory - too religious. Can't be a Christmas tree factory - real trees=good guys in these movies. Wrapping paper? Candy Canes?  (3) The falling object isn't a star the kid wishes on. Instead it's Santa's sleigh crashing. Why? Because this movie still needed to be Christmas-fied by 40% It's not like you actually have to show it crashing either. Or crashed. Or the crash site. Or really deal with it at all as it's apparently gone immediately. They just say they found a hole. And anyway the titular wish is just in a letter he writes to Santa so it's not like he wished on the sleigh, even if that would make sense, so... what's the point again?

Oh that's right - his Dad pointed out a bauble in a Christmas book that he said was Santa's magic thing needed to get to everyone on Christmas to his 12 year old who still believes in Christmas like all 12 year olds do. The kid finds that bauble (apparently falls off sled in crash) and that becomes something to bring Santa in as he's looking for it. It gets lost again and finding it is what brings the woman back a final time. But why do we need Santa at all? Because he's delivering the kid's gift of NEW MOM aka business woman! Huh? Why would he need to be there at all? Why the bauble? Why not do some other magic or...

Or maybe it was originally just some random piece of jewelry connected to his mom that got lost and when business woman brings it back it's like the mom is bringing her back implicitly saying it's ok for the guy to move on! Oh that makes so much more sense! Then the fact the kid never says anything about missing mom, or the fact he has no personality (To wit, he likes baseball. Which team? No team. Just the sport. He's got posters like you had growing up. Some unidentified player hitting a ball, some unidentified field, a bat and glove) makes more sense because his "miss mom, mom wants you to move on" scenes had to go to fit in Christmas junk. Am I giving the writers too much credit for their original script that may or may not exist? Maybe.

I haven't even talked about Alan Thicke! He phones-in his performance and I mean literally. This is my favorite role you occasionally see in these movies, the name they can attach to it that is never actually on set with anyone else. Think Randy Quaid in Major League 2. Better yet, don't ever think of Major League 2. Thicke walks in set at 10AM, shoots 3-4 phone conversations with someone reading the lead's lines, walks out at 10:50 saying "Bada bing, bada boom, I'm done" Did someone involved in the movie sell it with Thicke's name? Did a corporate stooge demand it? Do either of those questions make sense in a world that exists outside of Alan Thicke's head? His character is actually supposed to be wherever he is with her mother but what daughter wants to talk to their mother when she costs the price of another speaking role?

Anyway this isn't a movie. It's an office that was decorated for the holidays. We see the festive trimmings, but we also see the dull sadness underneath.

3 out of 8+1 reindeer, who they say in the song is the most famous reindeer of all, but preface it with "do you recall".  That doesn't make any sense, especially after assuming I know all the rest of them. WRITE BETTER SONGS.

Monday Quickie

The Nats have a gaggle of new relievers. You can't swing a dead cat in DC without hitting someone currently being called a relief pitcher for the Nationals. That's great.

But...

But when will Papelbon/Storen go? Will there be another big signing?

The latter seems inevitable. They've made market offers to O'Day, Zobrist, & Heyward. If they manage to get rid of Papelbon and Storen they should have 15-20 million to play with, if they aren't eating too much salary. Not to mention whatever flexibility they may have between where they are now (~130 million) and where they were last year (~160 million). This is what we wait for. The other shoe to drop.

What seems likely too is that other things may happen. Gio was talked about in a trade. It was assumed some of the Voth/Lopez type arms might be going if the Nats sign another arm. We've heard Cargo rumors and rumors for the cheaper Charlie Blackmon as well. And Chapman is still out there - though everyone is waiting to see what MLB does first. It's kind of amazing how much of interest is still on the table.

Yunel Escobar was traded for Trevor Gott.

Last year, at 32, Escobar had a great season at the plate. When you luck out and get something like that - that is almost certainly going to be a one year thing (BABIP of .347 - even with the better hitting that is going to come back down) - you almost have to trade high on it. The Nats have. They didn't get much, but they never were going to. Everyone sees the same thing the Nats do when looking at Yunel. He had a lucky year at the plate and he can't play in the field. The Angels are hoping he can man third hitting not too far from .300, walk a little, make a little more contact than your average Angel, and not embarrass himself in the field. The last point is important because he should have value at the plate. The question is how much his play in the field takes away. If he's even just ok, the Angels have a good value and a choice to keep him another year for a reasonable price if they see fit. If he's not ok, well maybe Adrelton Simmons can cover for him. Anyway you slice it though - it's probably a better move than something like 3/30 for David Freese, an every so slightly better player who they had last year and is now a FA.

What about Gott and the Nats? There is something worrisome about Gott in that he basically was your typical flamethrowing reliever who struck out a lot but also walked a lot (though some argued this wasn't a control issue as much as an approach one). Then he got up to the majors and struck no one out. He still did fine because he forced a lot of groundballs but that isn't his game. One school of thought is that he learned a new trick and once he gets those K's back he can be a dominant reliever. The other school of thought, populated by the kids whose parents can afford to send them to the good school, is that his stuff isn't quite translating into the majors and he'll top out as a middle reliever. (There's also the med school of thought that worries that he's a few months away from injury) The good thing is that he is only 23 next year so really anything is possible.

The biggest issue for the Nats is the same that comes with dealing/losing any one. The Nats have to make up what they lost. Yunel Escobar 2015 was a positive player who hit .315 and kept the offense from stagnating for much of the year. The assumption is healthy Rendon will make up for that or healthy Werth. That's probably true. But we all saw what relying on guys that "should be healthy" did for 2015. This is why we push for a new bat. Not a better offense in projections, but a more security for that offense. We'll see. Plenty of off-season left.

Moe Rumors - this time with more Heyward

Payroll Check

We are all interested in what the payroll will be for the Nats in 2016. While no one thinks we're going back to the days where we could dream of one day being the 25th highest payroll, there are real questions of whether the Nats are committed to being a Top 5 ish payroll (like in 2015) or was that a one-year aberration brought on by age and Boras? Let say for the sake of argument they knew early on McLouth was not going to have his option picked up. What else have they done since then budget wise?

Declined Janssen's option : saves 5.5 M  (rolling payroll effect :  down 5.5 M)
Non-tendered Craig Stammen : saves around 2.5 M ( down 8M)
Signed Oliver Perez : costs 3.5 M  ( down 4.5 M)
Signed Yusmiero Petit : costs 2.5 M ( down 2 M)
Trade Yunel Escobar for Trevor Gott : saves 6.5 M* (down 8.5 M)
Sign Shawn Kelley : costs ~5M (down 3.5 M)

*cash was exchanged but the exact number is unknown.

So as of right now the Nats are in the neighborhood of 3.5 M less than what was assumed was possibly their payroll on October. That seems about right with Baseball-reference estimating the payroll at 130.5 M without the new signings and factoring in the addition of Papelbon late in the year? 

At this point we can't really say anything. They have maintained a stable payroll. There is an assumption that they will be able to lose Papelbon (-11M) and Storen (~9M). If this is the case then they would be able to add around 20 M in salary and maintain their current level of around 140. That's important because

The Nats have interest in Jason Heyward

Heyward is the Mike Leake of the offensive free agents in that he is young (turns 27 next August) and relatively injury free. He is more impactful than Leake though being an offensive player who doesn't do anything poorly. He's a plus defensively, good on the basepaths, can hit for decent average, has a good eye, and can hit for a little power. He's sort of Jason Werth but trading some pop for some defense. The Nats would likely play him in CF which bring the D into question a little (he's played corner OF most of his career) but it's doubtful that he wouldn't be worth his contract for the next several years even with a slight dip in defensive production.

Of course the issue would be whether you could get him for the next several years, or does that contract have to go 7, 8, 9 years or even a full decade. Given the current contract climate something no worse than 8 years with an opt out after 3 is probably the floor. Assuming Heyward remains healthy he'll likely make that worth it regardless of whether the option comes into play. However the opt out presents a bit of an issue for the Nats. If they want to do more than just add Heyward (and the payroll isn't going up) then they would normally scale the salary so that the big payday starts kicking in after some other payroll (Werth) is freed up. But there isn't a chance Heyward is going to play for 2 years at below market without the guaranteed promise of more money down the line, and not just money he could choose to get (at presumably the cost of other money).  No, if the Nats want Heyward they'll have to pay now.

The other issue a Heyward deal setups up is a 2018 and 2019 with 35-40 million already committed to two players (Max and Zimm). If you add 20+ million for Heyward you are committing around 60 million to 3 players before considering Bryce Harper. We've noted he could get 40 M a year. Can the Nats function as a franchise in 2019 with 100 million commited to four players? At least one of who (Zimm) is likely to be a non-factor?


The Nats signed Shawn Kelley

The Nats brought in Shawn Kelley on a three year deal last night. It's an oddly long deal in my opion for a guy who had been average in relief up until June of last year. But if you believe what you saw from June on it is worth it. In those 40 games he put up an ERA of 1.19, with an opponents batting line of .191 / 241 / .221.  The BABIP was not crazy low (.273). He had an 11 K/9 and 2.4 BB/9. That's some dynamite pitching.

He was particularly unhittable by right-handed bats. Nothing seems out of whack fancy stat wise but when you look at them as if he just got lucky, is there anything to expalin it? One thing might be a huge increase on first pitch strikes in 2015. Could he simply be attacking the zone better early? Another is a big increase in GB%. But his zone profile doesn't suggest a huge change to pitching at the bottom of the zone? A combination? Or maybe it was his his first year in a new league pitching primarily in a pitchers park to help mitigate HR issues?

Either way I don't see much of a downside unless you consider Kelley an injury risk. It's likely that there was some luck involved in his awesome finish of 2016 and he isn't a lights out guy you can depend on as a potential set-up or closer. In that case the Nats get a decent middle relief pitching, who can get a big K when needed but might not be able to consistently shut down innings, at a slight overpay. However, if I'm wrong then the Nats could get a very good reliever for about half-price. The downside is small compared to the upside.

Rumors rumors rumors

Nats want Mike Leake

What Mike Leake is, is young (turned 28 about a month ago), durable, and a starter with limited wear and tear. As far as good bets to give you what you expect for the duration of a contract go, Mike Leake is about as good a bet as you can make. What you expect, though, may vary. He's had fairly average results and the fancy stats that back that up and suggest he might have even been lucky to be average. He doesn't do anything particularly well, but nothing particularly poorly. If you like him, think maybe he can get a bit better, you've got a #3 type pitcher for the next 5 years. If you don't like him, think he might lose that luck as he passes over his peak, then you've got a #5 type. But like I said - you've likely got him for 30+ starts a year which is more valuable than we give credit for.

Nats sign Yusmiero Petit

With Petit you get a Craig Stammen type. Middle innings, reliable, former starter so can go multiple innings. You also get Craig Stammen costs though as he comes at 2.5 million. But he's Craig Stammen 2014 (ok), not Craig Stammen 2012-13 (very good!), or at least that's the best guess of what he is. Petit has wavered between starter and reliever since coming into the league. Perhaps with a focus on relief for a few years he will blossom. Perhaps. All the Nats are really looking for with Petit is average, consistent innings. Don't blow up in big spots. He's been in his share in SF and he's been... average! So good.

Mets get Walker for Neise

Makes the Mets better than they were a day ago. Walker has more patience and power than Muprhy (don't let the post-season fool you on Muprhy's power) but Murphy is a better pure hitter, making more contact and hitting 30-40 points higher than you'd expect from Walker. That is enough to even out any difference. Walker is a better fielder but in the "Murphy is bad, Walker is not bad" way. Neise is a fine pitcher. If you buy into last year than it's probably a bad deal for Pittsburgh, but if you think he's more like previous years, or even in-between than the Pirates get their own Mike Leake, with two team options to keep him on the team. For the Nats it makes their current rival a bit tougher than the day before, but it's not the big move we're worried about.

Mets sign Asdrubal Cabrera

You know Asdrubal. He's ok! He can hit ok, and he's not terrible in the field. Is he better than Wilmer Flores? Yes a little. If it's just a little why bring him in? Well, Flores did just break a bone and if you don't bring someone in and he suffers a set back the Mets are back to having the black hole of Ruben Tejada hitting. With this and the Walker deal the Mets haven't made themselves any better per se, but they've set up a situation where its hard to see them being terrible again on offense without massive injury issues. (thosse do happen!)

No O'. No Zo. So?

The Nats are not going to get Darren O'Day. People have been kind of underselling O'Day. Yes his FIP merely suggests a good, not great relief pitcher, but at some point you have to shift over from reliance on "This is what he should do" to buying into "This is what he is doing repeatedly". I think four years is enough time to do that. Hitters can hit O'Day, at least enough so he shouldn't be dominant, but have real trouble hitting him hard (sidearmers always give guys fits) so he is. Is the contract out of line? Maybe a bit, but if you are going to pay closers a ton, paying set-up men who can also serve as firemen for tough spots in earlier innings makes a lot of sense.

Yes, these one-inning guys are the easiest to develop internally but as we saw last year, that's not the same as saying it's easy to develop them internally. Just compared to "good guy who can throw 6 innings" or "good guy that can field and hit around average at 2nd", "good guy who can get 3 outs" is a lower hurdle. You need to have 2, 3, 4 of these guys on your roster to start the season. That's baseball today. If you don't have them you have to go get them. I don't have any problems thinking that O' Day will be at least good through at least 3 years of the contract so I think it's a shame the Nats missed out on him. The apparent cause was they didn't want to go 4 years. I'm not sure I find that all that reasonable, you pay the value the market sets or you get something lesser, but it's their prerogative. 

The Nats are not going to get Zobrist. Zobrist for four years is a definite gamble. He is already old (35 in May) so you'll be paying for years where history tells us decline will happen. He definitely will not be as good at the end of this contract than at the beginning. The only question is how fast and how hard. Players can continue to be effective full time players into their late 30s (just to point one out - Raul Ibanez) but it's not the usual situation. So most likely this is an abbreviated long term signing. In that I mean when you sign someone like Scherzer to a 7 year deal - you hope to get a couple years at prime to start, with diminishing results until the last couple where you'd be happy with anything not terrible. Zobrist's deal dismisses with the years of diminishing results. You hope to get a couple years as he is now and you accept the fact the last couple might give you nothing. It's a gamble totally based on the idea that he will make a difference in the next couple of years, but in sports 3 years is forever. Worrying about the back end of a deal only makes sense if there are several other back-ends already on hand to worry about AND your team won't spend money.

And that may actually be where the Nats are. Werth is often brought up here, but Werth's deal is over in 2 years. If you are having problems with Zobrist and Werth at the same time then something went terribly wrong. But the Nats do have Zimms contract, he can't stay healthy, and there is Scherzer's deal, which should be fine for at least a couple years but relying on a 30yo+ pitcher to be healthy three years down the road is a bad bet. Do the Nats need another dead weight contract potentially? Especially when they'll hopefully be trying to throw money at Bryce Harper to get him to stay. It's debatable. Really it does come down to Bryce. If you expect him to stay, or at least you expect to make a fair (re: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) offer to him, then Zobrist for four years is a bit iffy. If you don't expect him to stay, well then you have 3 years with the kid and you better make them count.

Zobrist himself is diminishing. He has great positional flexibility (which does NOT MAKE HIM A UTILITY GUY) but prefers to play 2nd. Last years stats say he had a bad year there. Even if that is just the annual variability of defensive statistics coming into play it is likely he is getting worse there and is better suited for corner outfield. Yet he wants 2nd and will likely play 2nd, at least in 2016. Offensively, he's been remarkably consistent and I wouldn't go against the idea that he'll be above average for the next two years. Now will he be healthy? That I can't answer but last year was his first year with injures this decade. That's worrisome for an old man in his mid 30s (trust me). Still he did play 126 games and if you can pencil him in for 140 for 2 years, above average offense and defense at 2nd that doesn't kill you? That's great for a team competing for it all. That's why I wanted Zobrist. I think the Nats are still in it and I'm not bullish about the future post 2016 right now. It has potential but is hazy. 2016 isn't hazy. The Nats should be good. Go after it.

 Ok, but the title of this post said "So?" What is that about? Well I think it's bad the Nats didn't get O'Day and Zobrist. That's true. But this is a deep free agent class and there are always trades to be had. This offseason isn't over. It has barely begun. The Nats haven't done much... yet. But that doesn't mean they aren't going to do a lot.

• Before 2012 the Nats dealt for Gio, signed Chad Tracy and Edwin Jackson (who would both help that year). 
• Before 2013 the Nats dealt for Denard Span, signed Dan Haren, Rafael Soriano and Ross Ohlendorf , re-signed Adam LaRoche.
• Before 2014 the Nats dealt for Doug Fister, Jose Lobaton, and Jerry Blevins. Signed Nate McLouth.
• Before 2015 the Nats dealt for Joe Ross, Yunel Escobar and signed Max Scherzer and Casey Janssen.

All these things didn't work out (I removed my eyeball and duck-taped it to your forehead, McLouth) but they were all at least relatively sound moves made to improve the team. Rizzo has always managed to make me feel better about the team going into Spring Training. He hasn't been perfect, no. We all know the issues with the bench and relief. And this is a particularly hard year to bounce back from with the FA losses the Nats have. But looking at the above I'm definitely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. With all these names out there in FA, some team is going to come out a winner without breaking the bank. I'm not going to bet against Rizzo being that guy. 

Monday Quickie - I blame you

It wasn't me. 

I hate the guy and from Day 1 I told you all you shouldn't root for him or celebrate him in any way. But did you listen? NO. You cheered him when he got a save. You welcomed him in. Well, you know what they say. You sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Itching much? 

Papelbon's crew are trying to say there is "no precedent for a team suspension for this type of incident". That may be true.  I pulled out other team suspensions without pay last night on Twitter.

There was Julio Mateo beating his wife. Yunel Escobar and the homophobic slur adventure.  Jose Guillen being Jose Guillen. No, nothing in particular about a clubhouse fight. You could certainly argue that the first two don't really compare to what Papelbon did. Maybe the third one? Maybe?

The problem is that non-criminal related suspensions are generally for on the field incidents. Brawls are the most obvious example, but you can find suspensions for quitting on the field, bashing up the dugout, umpire interactions. But fights with teammates, real fistfights I'm talking here, don't normally happen in view of the cameras, they happen in clubhouses or the tunnel or somewhere else. Those things can be hushed up or ignored and dealt with using fines so much easier. Sure occasionally guys get into it in the dugout and it happens to fast that a blow or two (usually more a slap or shove) is exchanged, but even then you can simply pretend it didn't happen if everyone agree and no one cares about your team at the time. And even if you can't do that, if everyone just gets ahead of things and says they are past it and it won't matter on the field, ala Bonds/Kent, usually that's enough.

But the Nats situation was different. The fight was in front of everyone. The nation's eyes were still on the Nats, having just found themselves eliminated from the playoffs after being huge preseason favorites. Despite both Bryce and Papelbon saying what they should post-game, Williams wasn't able to corral the situation. First he sent Papelbon back out into the game then making it seem like he didn't understand what was going on. Add to that the Nats were already waiting on a looming suspension for Papelbon for throwing at Machado. They couldn't do nothing - and with season's end so close it was just easiest to suspend him for the rest of the year and not deal with this again.

So they did - but they didn't pay him. And like I said - it's iffy if that was the standard procedure.

Why wait until now to file grievance?   Why now to leak grievance?* Probably they were judging if the Nats were seriously shopping Papelbon or not. If the Nats were really looking at keeping Jon on the team, there isn't a big reason to fight over 400K if you are making 11 million. It's not nothing no, but compared to keeping your employer happy and maybe showing them you are a team player and worthy of signing to a deal after you hit FA, it's minimal. But if they Nats are actively trying to ship Pap somewhere else? Then hell, get that 400K if you can. That's my guess.

Anyway it's a mess, as is everything dealing with the back of the pen. Like I said, your fault. Personally I'm waiting for the Mike Patrick blow-up about the Nats after Drew Storen gets sent anywhere. Not your fault, though so there's that.

*Since I know nothing apparently my take isn't right - but it may not be wrong either. If they can withdraw a grievance than it is possible that the basic thought holds true. If they can't, well then I don't know. 

Quick Perez Take

What he does: Offers somewhat reliable middle innings and lefty specialist work

What he might do: allow Felipe Rivero to pitch in set-up (closer?) role

What he doesn't do : tell us anything about Papelbon/Storen or budget. Contract is about market and no Janssen, No Stammen frees up money for this. 2016 budget is unchanged. Perez should not be a 8th/9th guy

Stammen, better than you think.

Craig Stammen was non-tendered the other day. Like most of the little moves the Nats make it hardly seems consequential. Stammen had been a solid, middle innings reliver but was never quite a shutdown guy (walked too many and was too hittable for that) so he never graduated to late inning work. Last year he got injured tearing his forearm flexors and he never got back during the season. This season he'll be 32 and he would have been a free agent after the year. The Nats might have figured it was better to move on from Stammen now and continue to try to develop some other, younger, arms who might be with the team for a while.

Of course this undersells what Stammen actually did over his time with the Nats. He didn't just eat up some middle innings. No reliever on the team, not even Clippard, threw more innings for the Nats from 2012-2014. In fact not a single pitcher who didn't start a game from 2012-2014 pitched more innings than Craig's 242. Second closest was Adam Ottavino at 222 about 10% less. That's a big gap. He probably appeared for multiple innings more than any one during that time, certainly more than any NL relief pitcher.

He was not a shut down guy, true, but he could get a strikeout when needed and rarely gave up the home run (16 in 250+ innings as a reliever). That meant that he kept the team in games and that bears out if I peruse the fancy stats. He didn't let many inherited runners score. He often left the team in a better position to win when he left the game. He didn't just pitch in easy situations, putting the team in better situation when considering the importance of when he was pitching. He was not the best, but we was better than most.

After you get through the "great young arm we're moving to be a closer" types, Stammen was almost the ideal middle relief pitcher. Add him to an equally effective Tyler Clippard in the set-up role and you had a quiet but extremely competent bullpen for close games. It wasn't "You aren't scoring on us after the 6th!" like the Royals and others may have had over the years. But it was "you aren't likely to come back enough to win this game" and it showed.

Who takes over these roles? Last year, with Clippard gone and Stammen out, the Nats tried Blake Treinen who was good... except when it mattered. He turned in an extremely "un-clutch" year, pitching worse when it mattered. To a lesser degree the same happened with Casey Janssen. Aaron Barrett wasn't nearly as bad but did nothing to turn around the image of failure he first left Nats fans with in the 2014 playoffs. Matt Grace was disappointing in a short run, as was Sammy Solis. AJ Cole is not a reliever. Matt Thorton, who was actually good, is gone into free agency.

This was just one season worth of pitching. It may have been just an off year or a few bad games for a couple of these guys. Don't be surprised if the Nats try a couple of these arms in important situations again, but the Nats may have stumbled onto their middle relief guys at the end of last year in Rafael Martin and Felipe Rivero. Felipe will probably be limited to a lot of lefty heavy work, so that leaves Martin, who had a bad first impression but was much much better in September to get first crack at being the "new Stammen".  It's not a bad plan to start the year and it may work. But given the situation the Nats saw last year and the limited data on Martin, I think I'd feel best if old Stammen, all of 2 months older than Martin mind you, was taking that first crack.

Of course, given that he hasn't pitched since April, the Nats know the injury situation with Stammen far better than I do. I'll have to trust that is what drove the decision to non-tender, not his likely cost  (probably near 2.5 million) or the fact they were likely to head to arbitration with him. One hopes that they wouldn't let a reliable arm walk to save a few dollars, especially after last year.

Given that trust, we just have to wish Stammen well and hope he surprises and does well at his next stop too, where ever that may be. (Don't be surprised if he tries to hook up with the Reds)

Of course this is all just a prelude to the bigger question that is what happens with the back end of the pen. Which is anyone's guess because man, the Nats created a mess there, didn't they?

Analysis Still in Action

One of the knocks on Max Scherzer entering last year was that he threw a lot of pitches. That happens if you strikeout a lot of people (which Max does), throw a lot of innings (which Max does), and aren't particularly known for precise control (which Max wasn't until last year).

That last point is important because there was some hope during last season that Max wouldn't end up throwing a lot pitches because he was giving up a lot fewer free passes. While he did successfully lower his P/PA to a career low (3.73 after usually being over 4.00) there were enough innings, HRs and various other things to keep his pitches up near the top of the majors. That marks his 6th season in a row of being such.

Last season I tried to analyze the issue by looking at those pitchers who threw a lot of pitches in multiple seasons (10000 in 3 years). You can check out what I did here. The end result was both grim overall and grim specifically.

It was grim overall because pitchers just break down. Up until age 31 it seemed, pitchers were ok. Don't kid yourself, they weren't paragons of health at any age. Pitching was still a wasteland of broken arms and broken dreams, but at least with the group I was looking at (guys who pitched a lot from 26-29 and pitched well) ages 30 and 31 were coin flips. Didn't really matter if you had a lot of work or not, you had a decent chance of putting up a full good season*.  After that though the chances crashed and burned. Age 33 was particularly chilling with only 2 pitchers out of like 25 having a full good year.

It was grim specifically because when I compared those that threw a lot of pitches 26-29 vs those that didn't (but still pitched the equivalent of full seasons during those years) the ones that threw a lot of pitches did fare worse**. Not a lot worse but given that things were so grim you are looking for any hope you can find. With those that did not throw a lot of pitches, there were the occasional bright points. Arms that seemed to last through 35. Buerhle, Hudson, Lee. There were none of these for the group Scherzer was part of.

But this was admittedly with a very limited sample. Not only do few pitchers stay healthy enough to be part of this comparison but the comparison can only go back to 2002 because we only have pitch count data from 2000 on. So I was looking forward to seeing what another year of data would tell us. What did it?

Out of the guys who threw a lot in age 26-29 the bad outweighed the good. Verlander (ages 26-31 falling under "3rd season, 10000 pitches in 3"; 32 this year) couldn't throw a full season. Lincecum (26-29; 31) was bad and not full. Sabathia (27-31; 34) was full but not good. Shields** (29-33; 33) was the same. Weaver (27-29; 32) broke down. The exceptions were Scherzer (28-30; 30) of course, Jon Lester (29-31; 31) and Dan Haren (26-31, 34), who after flirting with above average years finally put one up

It was pretty much the same in the other group. Ubaldo Jimenez*** (26-27; 31). Greinke (26; 31) and Cole Hamels all had good years and Matt Cain (23-27; 30)**, Doug Fister, Anibal Sanchez, Gavin Floyd and Scott Baker all remained injured with various effectiveness.

Twist my arm and I might give a slight edge to the "didn't pitch alot group" because the bad pitching was from people that were injured staying injured as opposed to getting bad (like Weaver did) and frankly a caliber of pitcher a step lower than in Scherzer's group, but that's only if you twist. It's not really that big of a difference between the two groups, honestly. And its pretty apparent that we just don't have enough data points, especially in the Scherzer group. In this day and age using a guy like Max is used is an anomaly. Add that to walks going down and I'm not sure we'll get another data point any time soon. The other group added 7 pitchers this year (Price, Felix, Gallardo, ZNN, Gio, Cueto and Wei-Yin Chen) that we can use in comparison next year. Max's group added nobody.****

The takeaway from the analysis previously was "it seems like if you don't pitch a lot you have a chance to be good into and maybe past mid 30s. If you do pitch a lot it seems like you don't". Nothing here really changes anything. To do so we'd need a pitcher throwing a lot then be doing well right through his mid 30s. Dan Haren's good year was after 3 years of mediocre pitching, not to mention a reduced number of pitches (and now he's promptly retired so we really can say nothing). Shields could have been notable but right now looks like another log on the fire. Scherzer and Lester are still too young.

What this limited data has suggests is that Scherzer and Lester will breakdown, probably in the next 2 seasons, while one or maaaaybe two of Jimenez, Greinke, Hamels might do well for the next 4+ years. That's about as strong as I can go. It'll take at least 2 more years (for Lester) to really begin to refute this assumption.


*"full, good season" defined as 28+ starts, 100+ ERA+
** I was very interested in Sheilds because he was an outlier. Most guys throw a ton of pitches while younger, like starting at 24/25. Shields didn't really get going until 27 and was doing something no one else had been doing - throwing a bunch of pitches at an advanced age and doing well. 2015 though ended that. I'll again be interested this year to see if he bounces back though.
***some of this group pitched a lot either before that full 26-29 range or too limited time to fit into the "alot in 26-29"). The years they did pitch a lot are reflected here.
**** and no one will be added next year. The one guy with an outside chance was Lance Lynn and... well there you go. 

Age-ism

I just wanted to go into a little more about age as a limiting factor because I think it's being undersold.

As far as just looking at age by itself, there is no magic number where one year you are great and the next you are terrible. Age is a slow process that effects everyone differently. However, the overall decline is clear and it eventually comes for everyone. That means the longer you rely on a pitcher the more risky the proposition. Late 20s are a lower risk than early 30s are a lower risk than mid 30s etc. etc.

Since we can't determine when the decline will happen (or what kind of decline it will be) it makes a lot of sense to try to get as much production in lower risk time frames as possible. When looking at ZNN vs Scherzer in 2016 and beyond* the edge for ZNN is clear.

I've used the term "old 26" and "young 30" before. I do that because baseball reference considers a player age for a season to be his age on July 1st. You have to pick some date, that's the reality of it. While not perfect, their solution is a pretty good compromise between getting a date close to game #81 and getting a date that's easy to remember. However, you can see the problem that happens with having to pick a singular date. A player 29 turning 30 on June 30th would be considered the same age as a player 30 turning 31 on July 2nd, even though clearly they are more accurately thought of as being a year apart. To compensate for that I like to call players with in-season birthdays "old" and "young". If you have a birthday in-season before July 1st you are "young" and if your birthday happens after that date you are "old".

Really this is far more useful for prospects (being "old" vs " young" in the low minors can be the difference between elite and good) and only comes into play in the majors if you happen to be directly comparing a "young" player and an "old" player relatively close in age. Hey! That's what we are doing here! ZNN is a "young" guy (May 23rd birthday) and Max is an "old" guy (July 27th). And that means we are getting a big heaping handful of starts from a younger ZNN.

On April 1 2016 Max Scherzer will be 31 years and 247 days old (give or take a day on these things - leap years and all). Jordan Zimmerman will reach that same age sometime during February in 2018.  Every start Jordan Zimmermann makes in 2016 and every start he makes in 2017 will be at a younger age than Max Scherzer will be to start next year. 

To me that matters, that matters a lot. When you look at career pitching aging curves and see the declines that seem to be precipitous between 31 and 33, when you look at Hall of Fame careers and notice that they all pretty much peak in their late 20s/early 30s**, you get nervous. Sure Scherzer is a great pitcher right now, better than ZNN. But ask me if I want basically 30 and 31 year old ZNN or if I want basically 32 and 33 year old Max, I hesitate and land on ZNN. Ask me if I want basically 32 and 33 years old ZNN or basically 34 and 35 year old Max and I don't even hesitate.

I'm not saying it's wrong to see it another way. Maybe you care more about that Tommy John injury or think there is something special about Max that will allow him to be good longer***  I am saying that for me what I can feel sure about knowing is limited to the fact that in general as you age you get worse. That makes age paramount to me over any single injury and the age advantage for Zimmermann is big. 

Now there's also another thing to consider. I did say in the beginning that I was "looking at age by itself". As Indy once said though "it's not the age, it's the mileage".  What kind of mileage do these guys have and what does that say about them? Does that age plus something else lead us to look at a specific age in the future that may in fact be a point of no return? Tomorrow, my friends.


*I'm not asking here which is the better contract or who will give the Nats the most value over time. If you want to look at that you would put Max and ZNN a year closer in age since Max signed it last year. I'm looking solely at who I would want from 2016 forward. You can argue that "Max w/ ZNN for a year then Max alone after that" is better than "No Max at all and ZNN alone after" but that's a different question. 

** What's up with Randy Johnson's career? Freak arm, am I right?  

*** I tend to believe the opposite though - that ZNN's career that leans more toward pitch to contact lends itself more to a Mark Buerhle type 2nd act than MAx Scherzer's get them to swing and miss career.