The Nats signed Gallo for 1/5. It's almost certain they won't sign another bat so from now on we can judge the bats that did sign and see if the Nats should have signed someone else given what they eventually got. No, it's not "fair". It's fun. It's a way to waste time between now and Spring Training.
Some rules
Gallo fit a lot of holes as I noted. So bonus points to players that (1) hit LH, (2) hit for power (3) can play any position but SS or C. In theory any other position is open but outside of corner OF and 1B/DH they will have to be judged on the "better than guy there" comparison. Corner OF and 1B/DH will be judged against Gallo. We'll also give the Nats a 20% salary advantage over any team finishing over .500 last year.
Up today is Justin Turner 1/13 up to 1.5m in bonuses. The Nats deal would then be like 1/15.5 with 2 mill in bonuses. Turner is mostly a 1B/DH but can play 3B. He is RH (minus) but does generate power (plus). Last year he hit .276 / .345 / .455. He's 38 but has been relatively healthy in his late 30s.
Is he better than Gallo at the plate?
-Yes! Gallo is actually more patient and has more power but hitting like 100 points better than Gallo is a clear advantage.
What about in the field?
-No. Turner is clearly just a 1B now. Gallo might have some OF left in him and general age/skill puts Gallo as likely a better 1B right now.
So would you sign Turner for the price* to replace Gallo? No, I don't think so. Turner should be better but he's not ideal and the age would scare me.
What about at 3B? How does he compare there? Is he better than Senzel at the plate?
-Oh god yes. Better power, better patience, can actually hit. It's a crushing comparison. You probably don't get how bad Senzel is.
But in the field?
-Senzel is not good but he was mostly playing OF before last year so he could get better. Turner is too old and he's not getting better. A hands down win for Senzel and again he's not that good. FWIW the contract for Senzel is 1/2m.
So would you sign Turner for the price to replace Senzel? Yes. Senzel is not a functional 3B. He shouldn't have been signed with Vargas already here and Vargas is not good.
Would you sign Turner for the price over Vargas? Yeah. The bat difference would make up for the fielding in my book. Vargas is probably going to be overall negative next year. Turner wouldn't be.
This is pretty much saying though any guy that can play 3B would have been a better play. Turner should be usable next year. I'd rather the team spend 15 mill on a usable player than waste 2 million on a guy who likely isn't.
*Note this is not my ACTUAL take. My actual take is "Is Turner better? Then I don't care. Not my money. Nats should sign him" but I get by now most of you buy into having to accept the money bucket theory of baseball payrolls. Also always answering "Better? Yes! Sign!" is not fun.
3 comments:
I'd sign Turner over Senzel, but not over Vargas. Vargas' main value as a 3B is that he can play shortstop if Abrams is hurt. Replacement-level shortstops are not easy to find. Vargas is meh with both the bat and glove, but meh is a lot better at shortstop than whiff or clank. I would play Turner over Vargas, but Vargas deservedly has a lock on a roster position.
I'm with you on this. I've seen enough baseball to know that you actually can do a lot worse than replacement-level. Vargas is a perfectly good placeholder given that there are 2 guys on the way who may be legit 3Bs in the future.
But damn, I'm getting tired of watching the bad and hoping the new guys pan out. If the Nats would spend $25M/yr on pillow deals, they'd probably lop a year off the rebuild and make the whole thing a bit more palatable in the meantime. I know the Cruz deal flopped, but look at all the bodies that they got in the 2021 teardown, especially from the rentals like Schwarber and.. uh.. that guy we got Lane Thomas for.
Vargas leads the team in smiles per game. He stays.
Post a Comment