Not that the Marlins can't suck right past the Nats but the Nats are now in line for pick #5 in the MLB draft instead of pick number 6 which is like getting $1.10 instead of $1 but hey - that dime can get you into a picture show and where else are you going to experience cool comfort in the city on a hot August day?
Let's see what the Nats can get by going over 20 years of 5th round picks 1999-2018
The Good
- Johnathan India
- Kyle Tucker
- Drew Pomeranz
- Buster Posey
- Matt Weiters
- Brandon Morrow
- Ryan Braun
- Mark Teixeira
These guys have all become good major league players. India and Tucker are still getting established but are having breakout type years. Pomeranz never became a star but had a couple good starting years and has reinvented himself as a good reliever. Morrow was a perfectly good starter who couldn't stay healthy. For all the Nats issues with Wieters, it was mostly injuries that kept him from being better than he was - which was still a starting worthy C for 7-8 years. Posey might be a HoF. Braun and Tex not too far behind that.
The Bad
- Kyle Wright
- Cole Ray
- Nick Gordon
- Clint Frazier
- Kyle Zimmer
- Bubba Starling
- Mark Rogers
- Justin Wayne
Some of these names you know, but none have been successful in the majors. Wright has so far been bad as a starter for the Braves but might turn it around. Frazier has had limited success, but injuries and now a strange dizziness is keeping him from having a useful career. Bubba Starling has been around long enough to work out some power - but nothing else - in the minors.
The Ugly
- BJ Garbe
- Clint Everts
- Chris Lubanski
- Matt Hobgood
These are the guys that never made it to the majors and as it's been a while since the most recent - never will. Long time Nats fans might remember Clint Everts - a 2002 pick for the Expos that was a name bandied about very early in Nats days as someone that might show up in the show.
Anyway this gives you a general idea of what to expect from a 5th pick. You have a good chance at a good player, but that means basically a coin flip. You have a low chance of a complete wash out, but not NO chance. 10-15%? The 20 years before that are less kind - there are good names - JD Drew, Vernon Wells, Jack McDowell, Dwight Gooden - but a lot more complete washouts with 12 players with no ML games or negative WAR compared to 6 in the more recent 20. I like to think teams have gotten better and identifying and developing talent.
The 3rd pick is a better chance, 1st and 2nd not guaranteed but you kind of have to mess up. After that you seem to be in a group where you gotta decent chance at a good player. It actually lasts much longer than you might think - to around pick 15. If you look at the last 20 years and all those picks as a whole there are probably a half dozen good players to be had from 4-15. The question is if you can ID one in your slot (or if you get unlucky, have a lower pick, and the guys ahead of you all get it right like the 2005 draft)
The Nats will get their chance next year and maybe the year after, too! Rizzo has rarely just flat out messed up a first round pick, with only Michael Burgess - a supplemental 1st rounder in his first draft in 2007, never seeing the show. However he hasn't been able to really sneak in a great player with those lower round picks excluding maybe the injury drop Giolito. The head case Drew Storen? The lifetime 5th starter Fedde? Maybe Dane Dunning will be the one that makes it - although not for the Nats.
However note that I stopped that 20 year look at 2018. That's because we still haven't seen the fruits of 2019 on. The guys picked in 2022? Maybe you'll see them in 2025 or 2026. They are only going to help the team in the sense of setting up the organization, not in making the major league team better anytime soon. It could be real lean for a while and we'll know that this off-season. The Nats could fill SS with a FA and there are plenty of top notch FAs. Will they do it? Even if they don't sign that great SP they desperately need and they don't become a winning team, signing a FA whose contract goes past 2025 would signal to Soto they do expect to win by the time he needs to re-sign. And that - that's the key to everything. Showing Soto there's a reason to stay.
20 comments:
This is a reasonable analysis re time delay to value/hit and miss outcomes. But I think you underestimate what it will take to make Soto want to stay and you stretch the timeline out further than is likely to be the case. At a certain point in time (before the 2023 season?), there is a shot for a deal...then they diminish rapidly as free agency comes closer. So, Rizzo has 2 free agency periods and one season's worth of trades to make the team's case. #5 in this year's draft is mostly if not entirely beside the point.
Harper--rereading your last paragraph, I realize that I merely re-made the point you had made: positioning Soto for a long-term contract starts this year's free agency period and the commitment of the Nats to bringing in stars on longer-term contracts.
Harper, I know you're not exactly rah-rah about better draft position, but the really bad news about them picking fifth is that it's come on the backs of a bunch of young guys not playing as well as you might have hoped. Gray went from looking OK to not, Ruiz had a real rough start, Finnegan stopped looking as good as he had, etc etc. They're young, sample sizes are small, and it's not DOOM but it's also not Soto. This is bad because these guys are (in probability) much more important to the Nats' next 5 years than whoever the Nats pick in this upcoming draft.
(I'm more rah-rah about picking 5th, I just hoped it would be because all the young guys were playing like stars, but Davey inexplicably brought in Javy Guerra to pitch the 9th inning of every game and he gave up 10 runs).
@Harper
Which, if any, of those guys were underslot picks?
I'd think you'd want to strike those from the analysis (or do some very complicated adjustment based on how the rest of the teams' picks performed vs expectations for slot... which sounds very complicated and difficult. So, yeah, just strike them.)
since 7/23 (before the Orioles swept the Nats, effectively ending their season, yes the date is deliberately chosen), both the Nats and O's are a league-worst 16-38.
I'm not worried about Josiah Gray or Q*bert Ruiz or Finnegan (who is fine as middle relief, not closing). I am much more worried about Kieboom and Robles not looking like long-term pieces. Luis Garcia looks legit to me.
As for the draft, which former projected #1 is struggling with injuries this year because that fits the Rizzo MO of Rendon and Giolito (Kumar Rocker maybe?)
Tell me, Harper: Would you stay if you were Soto?
All this Soto-divination is just crazy. None of us have any idea what he wants. We can assume he wants to be paid what he's worth. But we don't know how he feels about living in DC or how important contending every year is to him.
He certainly seemed to be pissed off around the trade deadline. But, at least in public, that was about his friends and most respected colleagues leaving (and putting him in a weird position as the 22 year old undisputed leader of a team). It was not about whether the team was contending this year or not. The team was already not contending this year. And he's smart to understand that the trades probably help us compete in 2022 and definitely help us compete in 2023. He already has a ring and has a dozen more years before he's out of his likely prime. He may feel some patience. He may not. We don't know.
I'll also say that Soto might really like the Nats. We've treated him well. Brought him up at 19, didn't begrudge him super 2, moved him to RF when we had the chance. I'm sure he feels (correctly) like his success is due to his talent and hard work, but he may feel some gratitude for coaches and opportunities etc along the way. He's on a HOF path. No matter your talent, that's not something to take for granted.
I wouldn't expect that goodwill to earn much of a hometown discount - or counteract strongly held feelings for or against certain cities etc - but I don't think it's much more likely that he's trying to find the fastest way out of town.
The bottom line is that we have to assume that he likes DC enough that he'll be receptive to an extension at slightly below market value (like take Bryce's FA deal and tack on the remaining arb years -- Soto is a bit better than Bryce, so it'd still be a risk-off type decision for him, but we're looking at 400/16 or something if it happens this offseason). We have to assume that because it's the only option available to the front office right now. If they make Soto that offer, and he turns it down, so be it. Then we can talk about what else the team can do to entice him, or start planning for a future without him. But until that offer is made and rejected, this is a little silly.
We're not allowed Soto-divination, but you are?
Eh, I just think there are a lot of possible psychologies based our very limited perspective. In some of them he likes being here, in other he doesn't, but the two way way most likely scenarios are:
1. He's willing to take a slightly under market value long term deal. (This wouldn't necessarily mean that he affirmatively likes DC or how the Nats are run. It just means that he's wants to lock in that crazy amount of money, and doesn't hate it here.)
2. He likes the Nats fine, but wants to experience FA and get the maximum deal possible. If we're the highest bidder, he'll be happy to come back, but he's not signing an extension.
Way way way less likely scenarios are:
3. He can't wait to leave the Nats because we're so poorly run and won't ever compete again.
4. He loves the Nats and is willing to give us a huge hometown discount.
My point is that the "Would Soto want to return? And what can we do entice him?" questions only really have an answer in scenarios 3 and 4 -- and those scenarios are vanishingly unlikely. Getting our team better as quickly as possible is a great idea! But for the purpose of wooing Soto, it doesn't matter at all in the much much more likely 1st and 2nd scenarios.
That's why Soto-divination is stupid. Because almost anyone in his spot likes their team fine enough to sign if the money / risk is right for them, and our being good or bad next year doesn't affect that.
Then again, the Nats could just trade Soto this winter.
Given his talent, contract, years of control and having thrived in the crucible of a World Series run, is there any major league player that would bring back a bigger return than Soto?
The one caveat with this analysis is with the change in draft pools the top prospects fall. Marcelo Mayer and Jordan lawler were probably the top prospects this year but with teams juggling draft money to 2nd, 3rd round picks they fell. Nats were aggressive with the pool Money this year to sign Brady House so you could see that again next year
SG - Yes, though I think they could do it without signing anyone - maybe. It depends on how things develop. This though it a golden opportunity to show they are still committed around him into the future.
Matt - except for Kieboom and the reliever kids I'm going to let everything sit until like Memorial Day next year. I WANT Gray to give up like another 10 homers... then be good next year. Most fun.
Anon - too much work in general. Just assume it washes out over 20 years.
ocw - Rocker is interesting and the Nats def would have grabbed him last year. I just don't think a year off and his more 10th position stats from last year will make him a target at 5. They are too HIGH up now. (and I can't imagine he'll last going around again)
SM - I wouldn't think about it now. Maybe after 2023.
Anons - I agree. We don't know what Soto wants. I think we can infer from the history of baseball (1) If he doesn't get paid near what he thinks he's worth or near what he can get elsewhere he won't stay and (2) if the team is flatly horrible and does not appear to be getting better he won't stay. Other than that we don't know.
I think signing a FA makes the Nats better next year but more importantly likely makes them better for several years AND into Soto's FA year and helps with the "appear to be getting" better part by showing they are still committing money to the team. That's why I think a signing like that could matter. But ulitmately it'll come down to $$$ and $$$ and $$$ and some kids' development and $$$.
SM - no but who has a haul that you want back for him? If I'm the Nats I gotta have two of the best starting P prospects back for him (plus more). The only team with that kind of abundance is Miami and they could def use him but I can't see that. Then what? San Diego's top 3+ which the only P is the falling Gore? Will the Reds give you both their starters? Various Cardinals or Yankee prospects? I see nothing I'd take.
Treaple - well sure. This is all very general
Side note from your favorite Robles apologist: Vic is the second youngest player at Rochester and has hit .950 OPS since being sent down. Hopefully he is finding whatever he lost in 2020.
I have less apologies for Kieboom since he's older and has never done well in the majors. He also still appears to be a defensive liability.
Soto's "psychology" is on display every day. He's analytical, rational, longer-term thinker, optimistic, and learns new environments quickly. He doesn't suffer from impostor syndrome and loves to perform on the big stage. We also know that he is represented by a savvy agent that will unquestionably provide Soto a holistic assessment of his options: like his potential endorsement income in different markets, taxes, or post-retirement opportunities for a one team HOFer. "Liking" DC isn't in the top ten of that list. I speculate that Soto won't overweight a deal that is lower in net present value just to get a higher nominal number, but the king of walks can probably be persuaded to take a deal with properly adjusted deferrals with all the state-level tax benefits that will accrue. As expensive as he will be, I think we can also expect Soto to be more rational and risk-tolerant (deferrals, other cities) than some other stars.
Look at the experience of the Nats "big" free agents. They couldn't have acted more differently.
Bryce's main objective was to get a massive payout. A big splash was as important as the money. It didn't matter that he was signing with arguably the biggest rival of his present team. He couldn't get the Yankees or Dodgers so signed up with the rival.
Rendon wasn't happy in DC, he wanted California or Texas. Off he went, no bad feelings, but DC wasn't for him or his family.
Strasburg was happy to get a deal in DC. Keep the family in the same house, sign the deal, stay. Low key, no need to stress about it.
Max? He wants to be in the World Series again, he wants to win. Dodgers and California's big stage seem to suit him. Doubtful that he's comin' back.
I agree on Bryce, but Max signed in DC for the money not because of the Nats excellent record in the playoffs. Strasburg's extension both had an opt out (which he took) and sure seemed to pay a lot. Do you think other teams offered him more after he opted out? Doubtful. Rendon was also offered more elsewhere and took it.
Even Bryce just went where he was paid the most.
I do think his deal structure supports the idea that he was locked in on setting a record nominal topline, but he also took the largest guarantee he was offered.
You can't be surprised that players haven't internalized our rivalries to the extent required to turn away from tens of millions of additional dollars.
(Especially in Bryce's case where our offer was very much on the low range and, while it might have been a good faith effort to begin negotiations, it was assuredly not a good faith final offer. If we don't love him enough to be in the ballpark of other teams' valuations, why should he love us enough to reject the Phillies? It's the Dodgers offer that I think Bryce would have taken if he wasn't blinded by the nominal guarantee goal. He would have cleared an extra $65 million through 2022 and then been a 30 year old free agent only needing $150M to match the nominal total. Rendon just got 245/7 at age 30. It's so obviously the right move that you kind of think he may have known it, and is telling the truth about not wanting to go through FA again enough to leave a few tens of millions on the table.)
The "enticing Soto to stay" subject depends entirely the nature of his negotiations with the Nats FO. If negotiations are slow or stagnant in the year leading up to FA, then I think that player is likely to leave. Turner has a similar story to Bryce and Rendon. "We reached out to the FO, haven't heard anything in months. We're in the dark. Ask them." Then Barry Svrluga comes out with a piece in the post months after the player leaves with Rizzo saying "we tried everything to make him stay, we couldn't reach a deal." Both point the finger at the other. Who do you believe?
@Ole PBN
That's just posturing. If they truly want to stay and work out a deal, then they say "we've been talking". If you want to test the waters of FA, then you say exactly that: we haven't heard from them, but we want to talk. 99% of situations, I trust what the FO says more than the player. The player has all the leverage in FA, so why weaken your negotiating position?
Post a Comment