For the briefest of moments on Friday it felt like the Nats would have something to hang their hat on. They had matched the record of the Phillies and could end the series ahead of them. While it would say more about the Phillies than the Nats, the feeling like the Nats were not the doormats they were expected to be would be a welcome shift. Maybe being competitive wasn't so far away.
But the Nats lost the last two games and fell back into a clear last place with arguably their toughest part of their schedule all year coming up. The surprising D-backs are next, followed by the Braves and Houston. Nine games where 0-9 wouldn't be a shock*
Yesterday brought up the fact the Nats pen does not have a lefty but the honest problem is the Nats pen doesn't have a balance problem, it has a depth problem. Good pitchers get anyone out, but the Nats don't have enough good pitchers. Ward, like Harris before him, was just a guy to try. It's not working. Machado is a last arm in the pen type, who is pitching much worse. Ramirez is a guy who was hanging on who might now be at the end of his career. Edwards' luck might be running out, turning him from a reliable arm into a back of pen guy. Mason Thompson, is already there, trying to get back right on the job after heavy use. Harvey is holding on better, but like Thompson doesn't have a history of seasons with the IP you'd like and probably needs to be worked semi-cautiously with an eye toward 2024. That leaves the converted Kuhl who has been pretty good but also should be kept to eating innings, since the Nats need that often, and Finnegan, who is back to normal.
It's a set of 2-3 reliever you like, when used judiciously, with a fourth possible. That's not enough right now. The Nats have guys like Gore and Williams and Gray somewhat who aren't necessarily ready to approach 200IP and no 5th starter. They need to lean heavily on the pen.
I suggest the same thing as last time. Start shuffling anyone who looks half-way decent up to the majors. DFA who you need to. Relief pitching is about moving things around until it clicks. Let's see anyone in AAA with a live arm. Bring in some FA. Something. But don't let Harvey and Finnegan get to Thompson level where you hurt an arm that might be useful.
*but always bet on 1-2 series so 3-6 is the expectation
14 comments:
A tweak to your plan would be to grab another older guy to just eat up some innings.
If there aren't any real prospects, and there just aren't enough, then someone's gotta get about 5 innings a week taken care of. Another Kuhl, or Espino, or someone who just needs to earn a paycheck by getting outs.
I like the plan in theory, Harper, but who do you have in mind?
The pitchers already on the 40 aren't promising. Cronin hasn't pitched in 2 weeks, so he's probably injured. I'm not opposed to seeing if any of the starters click with a conversion to relief, but I don't think there's reason to expect anyone to be better than replacement. It'll just be more Harris's and Ramirez's. Ferrer is probably the best bet, and he has a 4.70 FIP in AAA. Don't get your hopes up.
If we were still competing for a WS, I think you'd feel a lot pressure to convert Rutledge or Henry and get them up quickly, but given where we are, I think that would be pretty clearly a mistake.
I don't know. The data sets are so small for relief pitchers, and even more so in the minors. And most of the public prospect analysis downgrades relievers to the point that even the best are considered fringe, so it's hard to get good scouting reports too. All in all, it feels very hard to make sense of who has a real shot.
I think maybe you just muddle through this year with what we have, using the AAA starters as a long relief taxi-squad when you need more innings. (Assuming that Rizzo doesn't have 3-4 hidden relief aces that he's holding back for service time nonsense or something.)
@Harper: will you be doing a pre-draft analysis as we get closer to the MLB draft in July? There seems to be a lot of hype this year. Whether that’s due to the first year lottery implementation or the caliber of talent deep into the first round, I don’t know.
Consensus is Crews to Pirates and Skenes to the Nats. Crews looks like a sure thing, but I don’t think he’s superstar material. Skenes on the other hand, many think his ceiling is higher. Crews has the track record of three years of solid production, while Skenes year at LSU is an all-time achievement. All is to say, tough life down in the bayou! I’m seeing some reports that the Pirates won’t be able to afford the $9.3M slot at #1.
Not sure how relevant that is to the Nats draft strategy or if they are similarly financially hamstrung? How does this all work with respect to slot money and how teams spread cost around multiple rounds/multiple picks?
Asking for a friend ;)
FG just dropped their Nats prospect list and they're pretty down on our hitting prospects beyond Wood and House. (Well, and I guess they're believers in Millas's recent improvement, but even here Millas just projects as a very good backup catcher.)
They've dropped both Hassell (mostly power, some defense) and Green (mostly K's, some lost speed and expectation of a shift to LF) whole grades. The write-ups feel somewhat overly pessimistic, but you can see the logic in it. They expect Hassell to peak as a fourth outfielder and for Green to likely stall out in the high minors. And those outcomes are certainly possible.
I don't know how much that really changes the rebuild, as long as Wood is really a star. Especially if House pans out -- the improved grade on his defense at 3rd is really encouraging. But it will feel kind of disappointing if out of we only get one OF starter out of Hassell, Wood, Green, Lile and JDLR.
They seem to like our SP prospects better. They have Cavalli coming back to be a mid rotation starter. Henry has mid-rotation stuff, which has looked good during his rehab, but the durability issues mean his the most likely outcome is in the bullpen. Their take on Rutledge has improved and they now have him projected as a backend starter.
I mean, it's not too far from the rosy scenario I suggested last week -- Gore takes the expected step forward and is a legit 2. Gray loses some his luck and settles back to be a solid 3. Expect one of Cavalli and Henry to be healthy and solid as a 4 and Rutledge to hold down the 5. We go sign an FA to be the ace and then Bennett, Saenz etc are depth. It feels very reasonable to me.
All in all, it's an interesting read, even if it felt like more bad news than good.
Actually saw the FG write up as encouraging (and thanks for flagging). Hassell, Green, and Rutledge yeah, not great. I think they’re a little more agnostic on Hassell as someone who projects as a borderline OF starter with the potential to be a plus starter if he starts hitting to more parts of the field.
But they sort of make Wood sound like the next Soto, but with plus defense in CF, and like Brady House will be a Ryan Zimmerman-type 3B, with Cavalli, Henry, and even Darren Baker as projected major leaguers. Kind of encouraging overall I thought.
Fansided regraded the Soto trade this week. Call from the Pen did an article on trade candidates and thought Domenic Smith was playing well enough to be traded (not sure that's true). Rizzo's tenure is being evaluated (in light of Strasburg) and the trade deadline is coming.
All of which leads me to ask Harper...can you do a chart of who we have traded in the last two years, where they are now, what we got in return, and where they are now. Turning Jon Lester into Lane Thomas is certainly one to smile over....some of the others may not look as good.
@Steven: when analyzing trades, you have to remember that the people that the Nats traded were generally approaching free agency. So you can't include any value for the player beyond the point where they are (or were, in most cases) under team control. For example, Trea Turner and Max Scherzer are clearly better than Josiah Gray and Keibert Ruiz as players. BUT: both Trea and Max are no longer with the Dodgers. The Dodgers got two months of Max and one season + two months of Trea and now they are gone to other teams. While Gray and Ruiz are both under team control for years. Gray won't become a free agent until after 2027, which is where Ruiz also was until he signed an extension through 2030 (with a team option for 2031).
@John C. I understand that trading current stars for "(maybe) future stars" can't be evaluated for years. The 2021 and 2022 trade deadlines made clear that a portion of the fanbase doesn't have a clue how that works or whether Rizzo was out of his mind. So your explanation will help many.
I am interested in the table to 1/ evaluate the Rizzo trading record over the last few years, 2/ think about the change in sentiment I've observed in the fan base about the trades now that they can see "(maybe) future stars" develop; and 3/ see how many of the trades are already won or lost.
Jon Lester was worth a ham sandwich and that was what everyone (but Rizzo?) thought we got. Here is the story from the time of the trade: "As for the Nationals, they'll be receiving outfielder Lane Thomas. The 23-year-old has a batting average of .104 on 48 big league at-bats this season with zero home runs and one RBI. Thomas hit .265 in 30 games with Triple-A Memphis this year." We also took back some duds, I am sure.
I don't know if Doo would improve the bullpen. But if he doesn't stink too much, the fans love him. And that's worth something for a team that loses more games than it wins. We'll probably find out soon.
Hassle is an interesting case. His numbers in the Padres system vs Nats:
SDP (A, A+):
747 AB / 225 H / .301 BA / 78 XBH / 54 SB / 0.22 K% / 0.12 BB% (104 BB)
WSH (A, A+, AA):
311 AB / 72 H / .232 BA / 17 XBH / 10 SB / .30 K% / 0.15 BB% (54 BB)
Other than his slightly improved walk rate, everything else is worse since he arrived. Certainly backs up the notion that players like Wood, Soto, etc. succeed in spite of our poor player development. While many others’ development stalls or never materializes. Hope he turns this around. If he does, he’ll likely need to do it by himself as I have little to no faith in the coaching at the lower levels of our minor league system.
"Certainly backs up the notion that players like Wood, Soto, etc. succeed in spite of our poor player development."
To the extent that the change is real, the most likely hypotheses on Hassell is that it's his wrist injuries. No need for a nefarious, unfalsifiable conspiracy that keeps Nats' players down (except when they succeed but that's just more evidence in favor of it!)
@Anon 8:26: Very well could be his injuries. Your point would go a lot further, however, could point to a a couple players that have come through our system (aside from Soto), and flourished at the MLB level? I’ll give you two that have not: Carter Kieboom and Mason Denaburg.
That line you quoted highlights either problem with draft selection or a problem with player development of said draft picks. Not sure which one it is, but I’d surmise it’s poor development with the guys we’ve drafted. Rizzo is a good GM, so it’s odd that he just whiffed 8 straight years in the draft, considering his ability for recognizing talent when he sees it (trades, FA).
This issue has been talked about for years on this blog. Since Rendon, only Soto has come from within our minor league ranks to succeed at the highest level.
For bats, I'd say that Trea, Souza, MAT and Robles all were at least mostly developed by the Nats and have peak seasons as impact major leaguers. Is 7 in a decade (adding in Harper, Rendon and Soto) below average? Maybe.
If it is, the cause could also be bad amateur scouting, as you say, or bad draft position / loss of picks to QOs, or just bad luck, and we could analyze and debate how to weight those factors. But the first step would need to be measuring how extremely, if at all, the team has underperformed.
Post a Comment