I kept meaning to update this post (remember when I said look out for the OF and you said "you crazy" and then the outfield wasn't good and had to be saved by an out of nowhere ROY season by Soto? Remember?) but never got around to it and now it's kind of cheating to do it 40 games into a season but still I want to see how the Nats plans would have done looking at things this way.
After 2018 - Now you can't avoid getting a C. You have to replace Adams and Murphy. Maybe get a better MI back-up to compensate for Kendrick's injury (or to replace him if he moves into 2B). Maaaaybe a new 4th OF? You need at least two starters, and three full-season guys honestly would be better after the half-time 5th starter plan blew up in the Nats face. At least two dependable guys to get you to Doolittle.
They brought in Suzuki AND Gomes at catcher - a VERY GOOD SOLUTION. In a normal year you might even say this was a great solution, but last year you actually had two great solutions staring you in the face with Grandal and Realmuto. This was a clever way to not do those and end up feeling good about your C spot but still you were finding a clever way not to do obvious great solutions.
They brought Adams back to replace Adams - GREAT SOLUTION
They brought in Dozier to replace Murphy or Kendrick, and that's it - POOR SOLUTION. It might have been ok if Kendrick was ready to start year, but he wasn't and they knew it far enough out to plan better. Difo has shown himself to be only an "emergency or expanded roster D" guy so you were entrusting 2B to a guy who ended last year on a real down note and a not ready player. Kendrick would come back relatively soon but in the meantime one injury threw the whole thing into shambles (and the 2nd made it even worse!).
They didn't replace the 4th OF, MAT kept it - GOOD SOLUTION. Look, I tried to find a better option. Adam Jones might have been it and really he's a tough fit here because he's a starter and yet he wasn't going to push anyone starting out. That would have been great but MAT is fine.
They didn't get three full-time starters - POOR SOLUTION. If it were just Corbin it would obviously be great. He's the best third the Nats have had since ZNN left and Gio turned for the worse. But starting pitching has to be viewed in total and they replaced the second Roark/Gio with a less reliable version of them who was likely to pitch no better and then decided to try the Hellickson plan again. It didn't work in 2017 and now they were going to try it again with a worse set-up. Boggles the mind. Sure it could work out better but objectively Anibal was more likely to need bullpen help and that's the key to the whole Hellickson plan.
They didn't get two dependable guys - POOR SOLUTION. I'm willing to accept Barraclough as dependable guy #2 if there was a better dependable guy #1. There wasn't There was completely undependable Trevor Rosenthal. We've seen how that worked out.
This was more typical Nats than last year. They didn't just outright ignore problems this year. But they did try to skirt a corner here and there. And for the Nats that never seems to work in their favor does it? The starting pitching you can almost excuse. They upgraded the 3 spot and in return made the back-end worse. It was a trade-off. Ok. At second though they tried to sneak through a what would be a bad plan for the first month or so. Stop trying to do that! And in the pen they went with hope and prayers. I guess this is in response to last year when they did have 3 good dependable (but not great) arms back there and it didn't work out, but if a good plan fails you don't respond with a bad one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
"It didn't work in 2017 and now they were going to try it again with a worse set-up."
I think you mean 2018?
Also, not so convinced that Realmuto was a 'great' solution. Unlike Grandal, the Nats would have had to have given up talent for him. At one point, Robles was in that conversation, and I'd rather have Robles than Realmuto (as good as Realmuto is). Also, if they got Realmuto, they probably would have gone with a replacement-level backup at C, vs. now you have (in theory) two guys who are above replacement level, and the injury risk (which is a big thing for the Nats!) is reduced.
As for Grandal, he signed for I think for $18 mil, which would have been out of the Nats' price range, given all the other moves they had to make.
I think the overall point is: the Nats, whether you agree with it or not, were determined not to exceed the luxury tax this year (unless Bryce took below-market offer #2). Therefore, they had to get creative with the upgrades. They went with a bunch of low-floor, high-ceiling options, and have gotten mixed results from the offseason moves so far.
I've always thought that Rizzo was an excellent GM, but this team has really made me question that. There was an excellent article, I forget where, about how good all of the relievers who used to pitch for the Nats are doing. To sum it up, there's a whole bullpen out there who pitched for the Nats within the last two years who put together have an ERA below 2. I know that the Lerners often subvert him (Hello, Matt Wieters and Bud Black!), but it can't be any worse than what Cashman puts up with and he's able to manage up better.
Rizzo's strength is supposed to be in scouting, but while some of their 1st round picks have worked, they really haven't developed much of anything through the farm system outside of First rounders. They've had some luck in the International market, but again, with higher slot guys. I can't believe I've arrived at this place, but I think more than Martinez needs to go, I think Rizzo needs to go with him.
Lumley, you're almost exactly wrong about the international signings. The only international success who received a big bonus to sign was Soto. Literally all the other DR prospects who have made the majors have been low-bonus guys, including Robles and R. Lopez. Robles signed for $225 K, which is the rough slot value of a 7th round draft pick. Lopez's bonus was $17 K, which is ... very little.
So they've had massive success in the DR for fairly little money. One wonders why they haven't been able to replicate this success in the draft, though.
There were plenty of decent 2bs out there for the same or less money. They actually overpaid Dozier. I don't think anyone was offering him that kind of money. I thought Schoop was young enough to actually bounce back (unlike Dozier who is probably old enough that he is what his numbers from last year say) and Dietrich is pesky and cheap and then you could use the money you didn't spend on Dietrich to get some more relief pitching (or to pay the guy I really wanted as #4, Charlie Morton).
Rizzo tried to outsmart the league not once but twice on Dozier and Rosenthal. Far too risky and he paid more than he should have in the first place. So many relievers were available for less (I still don't get why he let Holland go without an offer).
Boswell warns about letting Rizzo go. We'll see what he can do when it comes to rebuilding if he stays. It's scary to think what might happen if he leaves and the Lerners think they're smart enough to run the team. Hope not. I don't know who's out there. Duquette?
One thing people evaluating Rizzo miss: the Nats have been winning and so have been picking towards the end of the draft (and that's not counting years when they've given up 1st rounders to sign free agents, including ownership-driven signings like Soriano).
There's enormous difference even within the top and bottom of the 1st round in terms of the expected value of each pick, on the order of tens of millions of dollars. And that carries on for each round.
This is the cost of winning, and it's a very big one.
@JW I don't blame Rizzo for the lack of development. You yourself point out that a bunch of pitchers are doing much better after they left the Nats. That means our development/coaching is bad. Rizzo gave them the pieces, he saw the talent, and the development people screwed the pooch.
@Anon1 You pointed to two guys, that's it. One guy they paid a decent amount for in Robles, yes it's equivalent to a 7th round pick, but they haven't developed much of anything else, at all. The only homegrown talent contributing is 1st round picks and a few DR players.
@Matt I get that they've picked low, but don't you think somewhere in there in all those years they'd produce someone who helped in the later rounds. I mean just on pure odds they should have 1-2 guys and I can't think of any beyond Craig Stammen.
@Anon2 Rizzo hires the development staff. He's their boss. If they suck, it's kind of on him.
Ultimately, Rizzo has produced decent results, but when you consider he's been given a top 10 payroll and a couple of can't miss prospects in Strasburg and Harper, I think it's okay to have expected more.
I kind of agree about the development part, but there are plenty of examples of guys just figuring things out for themselves too, you can't put it all on someone teaching you something. If you are trying to win every year, you can't afford to try guys out forever. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if a guy like Austin Adams is successful with Seattle even though he got three shots here where they were begging him to just get outs, and he couldn't throw strikes. Now whether the lower level guy they got will do anything is an open question.
Sanchez down...that makes the SP an even bigger problem
Lumley, I specified two guys but I referred to ALL their international signings who have made the majors: Leon, Solano, Difo, A. Sanchez, various relief pitchers. None of these guys received a big bonus.
You wrote "They've had some luck in the International market, but again, with higher slot guys." This is exactly wrong. They have had precisely one big bonus international player make the majors (Soto). Literally EVERY SINGLE other major leaguer that has come out of the international program has been exactly the opposite of what you wrote - a low bonus player.
I don't understand why Gio is a Brewer. When we picked up Hellickson for $1.3M, Gio was on the market. He ended up signing with the Brewer's for $2M. To get someone who can pitch through the order a third time, innings eater and more talented for $700k as your 5th starter would have been a much smarter and obvious play, especially with the injury risks associated with Anibal (who went down with a hammy in the 2nd)...
@Anon You're equating DR dollars to US draft dollars which is a false equivalency. For example, this year the Nats will get just over $4.3M for their pool, and that's after trades to acquire more. For comparisons sake, that is roughly the slot value of just the #13 pick in the draft all by themselves.
Also, Leon, Solano, Difo and A. Sanchez are/were all sub replacement level players, so I'm not sure how that helps your case. Replacement level is what you'd expect to get from a 4A player. And nearly every single one of those guys is only in the majors due to a lack of depth.
I am not equating the value of the international pool to the value of the draft pool. They are different. I pointed out the slot value to provide context - it was merely to illustrate that Robles's bonus of $220k could not be construed as high.
Your statement - "They've had some luck in the International market, but again, with higher slot guys" - was incorrect and remains incorrect. And not only is it incorrect, it is exactly backwards.
I made no claim about whether the Nats' international signings have been successful. To the extent they have been successful, it has mostly been low-bonus signings. Any time someone who is paid only $17K makes the majors, I think there's a strong case to be made that the ROI is high and it therefore counts as a success.
Also, Sandy Leon started at catcher for a team that won the world series last year.
Re: Soto
Almost cost his team a win in the 9th today. Trailed that flyball like the Elephant Man, not a Men In Black alien.
Edge: I totally agree about Gio, and thought so all along. But I think we've seen Rizzo burn bridges on players many, many times. Blevins won in arbitration and he was gone the first chance Rizzo got. Madsen/Kintzler. I think Rizzo was sick of Gio's poor clutch performances. I always thought if you get a good #3, then Gio can be an innings eater for you and never sniff the playoffs. On the other hand, maybe Gio didn't want to come back to DC.
SM: Soto needs an OF coach who ISN'T Henley. MAT could probably coach all those guys on D. Even if the East is weak, I don't see the Nats going anywhere with their poor D and poor BP and lack of depth. They have the big 3 SP to do some damage, but they don't seem like they could handle the big stage in those tight games.
Taylor was far from a good outfielder when he first came up, his routes were lousy, he threw to the wrong base, and did a lot of the same head-scratching stuff. He learned, Robles can too. Maybe they could hire Tony Tarasco.
I think one thing that people sometimes forget when saying, "we could have gotten this guy!" is that there is a possibility if we offered that guy the same money he ended up signing for elsewhere, he still wouldn't have come to DC. All things being equal, he would have played somewhere else. Are you convinced that Rizzo didn't already tap Dietrich's or Schoop's market? I'm not convinced that he did inquire about their services, but I think people easily dismiss the fact that the player has a choice in where he wants to play - not just which GM tosses the most money.
That said, I agree, Dozier was an incredibly stupid signing.
@Anon - Sandy Leon posted a 0.1 fWAR last year and in 3 years with the Nats posted a cumulative 0.2 fWAR. So I was a bit overly harsh, the guy is almost exactly replacement level. Big win for Rizzo and the scouting department who found a 4A player in the DR on the cheap. Wilmer Difo has already been worth -1.1 rWAR this year in just 39 games. Solano was worth a career -0.6, Sanchez has a career 0.1 fWAR. Add all these guys up and their value is basically what you'd expect to find on the Waiver wire.
With as many signings as most major league teams have from the draft and International signings, I think you could pick names out of a hat and hit on as many "success" story 4A players as the Nats have come up with.
... But I'll admit there was some intrigue to a Dozier bounce-back season. Fine.
But its another question mark the needed to be relied on. I brought this up over the offseason, how the Nats have a ton of questionable/roll-the-dice key players to be counted on and someone on here pushed back saying that every team has a ton of question marks. I'll ask again. Really?
Zimm's health, Adam's playing like he did in St. Louis 2018, Dozier not sucking, Turner staying healthy (no one talks about him being an injury risk, but here we are and he's played under 100 games 3 of the 4 seasons he's been a starter). We also have Eaton as an injury risk, would Robles pan out, would Soto have a sophomore slump, would Strasburg stay healthy? Would Sanchez find the fountain of youth? Will Hellickson be effective again? Would Ross be able to pitch? Would Glover even play? Would Rosenthal work out? Would Grace build on his successful 2018? Would Howie be back in time? Was Miller a flash in the pan? Can Bear Claw be relied on for the 8th?
Good god. That only leaves Scherzer, Corbin, Doolittle, Gomes, Sukuki, MAT (who we anticipate to suck), and Difo (who we anticipate to be not good).
Post a Comment