Keith Law put his out and just to post the numbers (pay him if you want the analysis) Wood (16), Green (35), Hassell (43), Cavalli (71), House (85). I'll reiterate my thoughts that ranking prospects is primarily about not missing the next superstar and secondarily about figuring out who will do what in the majors so expect young guys with raw talent to be overrated. Nothing particularly new, other than a stronger belief in House than others.
This has been a dreadfully boring off-season. Last year was also fairly boring but it brought us the aftermath of the Scherzer/Turner deal which gave the team a couple young players to immediately stick in the majors and more importantly it put a clock on Soto. That was the dominant conversation and shaped our feelings about some of the signings. Maybe there is a long term plan around keeping Soto? What fools we were.
This year Soto is gone and there isn't anyone good around you care about that makes sense being dealt. No one wants Stras (contract, broken arm) or Corbin (contract, terrible arm). There are some guys with more interesting upsides than last year, like Trevor Williams and Dom Smith and Jeimer Candelario, rather than the guys you knew in 2022 but even if they fit a mold of who the Nats should go after they don't spur interest.
Also - unlike past years there aren't a lot of good players waiting to get signed. D-first Elvis Andrus? Disappointing one-note Gary Sanchez? Aging fast David Peralta? Yawn. I guess the Correa journey was interesting but that's over now. Vague interest in if the Rangers did enough to make some moves? I suppose. The Mets are spending to get over the top, but because they did that last year it feels less exciting.
But really it comes down to your local team and the Nats are in a holding pattern. 2023 is about seeing what the young guys do all across the organization and how that may shape the next few years. Its about selling the team or not. It's about if there is anything left to squeeze from Strasburg or if they can get something back for a smarter signing like Williams than they did for their 2022 one-offs that came up empty.
It's about a lot of stuff but what it is not about is winning on the field.
11 comments:
I agree--not much of great interest to write about. However, "It's about a lot of stuff but what it is not about is winning on the field" seems a tad harsh. 5 "top prospects" is encouraging and this is a year for seeing if the kids can play. Feels better--and hopefully more accurate--to say it is not about winning NOW on the field.
"What fools we were" is also a little harsh given that Soto rejected a $440 million offer. I mean, there was a plan to develop long term around Soto and it included Soto taking a team friendly, but record setting, deal. It's not shocking that didn't pan out, but it also wasn't an unreasonable hope. Those deals sometimes happen.
But yeah, we're going to watch some uncomfortably bad baseball this year, and while I can understand the reasons behind it and can even sometimes find a hopeful take on the 2024 or 2025 season, I really really wish the team had found a way to sensibly spend another $20 million to make this year's team better. Long term championship percentages notwithstanding, I'd much rather watch a mediocre team than a terrible one. And we are looking pretty likely to be terrible.
You are right as always Harper. Haven’t been less excited for a nats season since the 00s
Its bad, yes. But 2023 looks significantly better than 2022, even if we lost Soto. End of day, Rizzo got the best value out of a Boras client who had no plans to stay in DC. If he had stayed, he might have set a seasonal BB awarded record, but he would have been biding his time, avoiding injuries.
Four or five top 100 prospects is better than average --- but by no means assurance that the Nats will be competitive any time soon. It will be interesting to watch the young-uns come up through the ranks.
Scrappy young teams with desire are always interesting.
I agree with Anonymous generally...but puzzled by what's gained by spending $20 million more in 2023. The projected team is kids who are/could be the real future of the team AND some veteran players--mediocre but with some upside potential--you hope to flip at the deadline and meantime lessen the pressure on the kids to be great immediately. If you pay real money for someone, you have to play them nearly every day and they take away opportunities.
This is an honest question--with $20 million more to spend--what is the best strategy and how and whom do you choose differently?
Not Anon, but with $20M, I would've done something about the rotation. It's looking ugly for next year with no clue around what Stras can do (if anything), a really bad Corbin, Gray who's looking like Fedde/Ross 2.0, Williams who you hope to flip at the deadline anyway, and then a couple unproven rookies. It's hard to give the offensive guys any opportunity to succeed when they're going to be constantly trying to dig out of a hole.
@Cautiously Thank you. I hope others will jump in with ideas. I am intrigued by your insight that a bad rotation may contribute to slower development for our young position players. Behind in the game every day, I envision more swinging for the fences, when they should be focusing on becoming more complete batters. Does adding Willie Peralta as a swing pitcher help any?
@SG -- I'm the Anon from earlier, and I think I'd start with something along the lines of what CP said -- a SP3 who could be had for 2-3 years at $12-15 per. Maybe Stripling? Alternatively we could have signed Conforto instead of Dickenson, though that would have been with a more definite sign+trade plan since we have multiple good OF prospects coming up through the system. But my more general point is just that it's ok to spend money to improve even knowing that it won't be enough to compete for a title this season.
I get the argument against that practice, in that I agree there's no reason to believe the money is worth the expectation of the possible trade chip in terms of aggregate surplus WAR or championship likelihood. But I think that line of analysis has two gaping flaws.
The first is that it requires us to believe there is a fixed about of money that can be spent on the team and that it therefore makes sense to save money this year in order to have more money to spend during the competitive window. I just don't think that's true. Money saved now becomes extra profit, and the decision to spend money spent while in contention is mostly unrelated. Since, I don't care at all if the Lerners have $4 billion or 4.02 billion, so I want them to improve the team instead of using the "we can't win anyways" excuse to pocket the money.
The second is the utility function of my enjoyment as a fan is not 1 when we win a championship and 0 otherwise. Maybe some fans have a different take on this, but I'd much rather watch an 80 win team than a 65 win team, even if I knew both would miss the playoffs. YMMV. but I'd just try to improve the team this year in a way that doesn't actively make us worse in the future (so basically anything besides blocking developing young players).
I get the argument about spending $20M more, but a couple of thoughts:
(1) The free agent market burned very hot in terms of $$ and also burned out very quickly. I'm not at all sure that there were players available to the Nationals for that amount of money who would have made much difference. The impact players all wanted high-$$ long term contracts. The Nats aren't in a position where a Jayson Werth deal makes senase.
(2) On the rotation, I strongly suspect that the Nationals have a handshake deal with Anibal Sanchez, but even if they don't there is also an argument to "let the kids pitch" and see what they have. Right now the rotation is Patrick Corbin (33), Josiah Gray (25), Mackenzie Gore (24), Cade Cavalli (24), and Trevor Williams (31). That rotation isn't going to get the Nationals to the playoffs this year, but it's young and has some upside in the middle. Compare that with the Nats' 2006 rotation of Livo (31), Ramon Ortiz (33), Pedro Astacio (37), Tony Armas (28), and Mike O'Connor (25). I'll take the 2023 rotation over that one, which was both bad AND old. Heck, even the one "young" guy couldn't stay healthy and barely pitched after 2006.
It's a common internet criticism that the team should DO SOMETHING. But that assumes that there is something out there to be done, and that the something wants to also play for the Nationals.
@John C
I agree with both of your points.
A Werth-level signing would be premature, and that much money might actually have an impact on future available spending. I'm not suggesting that kind of deal, unless it's for a mega deal with expectations of superstar production 5+ years out (eg a Soto extension). I meant one additional deal of $50M/3 and another of $15M/2 or something.
And, while I agree that our rotation has potential, I don't think it's so crowded with talent that we can't improve it without sacrificing development. And, really, if we found ourselves in that situation with everyone showing well and none of the kids hurt or underperforming, you just cut Corbin and sleep soundly. No need to hold a roster spot open.
That said, while you're right that any specific player might not want to play here, given that Roster Resource currently lists Victor Robles, Dominic Smith, and Corey Dickerson in our starting lineup, I don't believe improvements weren't available if the team was willing to spend a bit more money.
Post a Comment