There’s still time but this offseason is definitely shaping up to be “what can we do cheaply in the next year or two, while we continue to evaluate the kids”
There’s ways this is ok. Like if it’s a pre-cursor to long term deals for the kids followed up by big contracts in the next couple of off-seasons. But for a squad that looked primed to take a big step forward in 2025 this “it’s in the baseball gods hands now” approach is disappointing. Especially in a very competitive NL East where a GOOD team might end up under .500
11 comments:
On their own, these moves are just meh, and not worse. I'm not a big believer in Yepez or Chaparro, and they both have options anyway. Taking a flier on Bell is fine, and $6M isn't, or shouldn't be, an amount that takes any other moves off the table. Likewise, 14/2 for Williams is good value, and we discussed it last week - the team kind of needed one more reliable arm in case we hit bad luck with injuries.
But my worry - and I think the obvious worry - ever since we missed on Walker at that price, is that there is just no budget at all.
As you say, there are good plans that these moves could be a part of. Extending the young stars is one of them. Freeing up Parker for a big trade is another. But if our highest paid player next season is an arb2 guy making $10M, it will be hard to keep extending the team the benefit of the doubt.
The Williams, Bell, Lowe, and Soroka moves are all fine with me individually. The Nats got TURRIBLE production from the DH spot last year (.205/.274/.341/.615). For comparison, league average OPS last season was .711. Eyeballing FG projections, a median expectation for Bell is .250/.328/.405/.733. That's a serious upgrade, if only because the measuring point was so low.
But if this is it for the offseason, i'd be disappointed. That would not be the "step on the gas" that Rizzo was pushing at the winter meetings. I do wonder about the budget, but not because they "missed on Walker" at the price for which he signed. It's not clear that he would have taken an offer at or even near that amount from the Nats for a variety of reasons (ballpark, win-now team in a much easier division, no state income tax, etc.).
I'm just waiting until the offseason is over before I reach for the torches and pitchforks. But I know where they are ...
If his pitching changes and careful usage from 2024 hold over, he's a useful addition, especially at that money, and if they don't, unlike 2023 we have enough other pitchers that he can be moved to shore up the pen, so this isn't a bad signing. I don't like the idea of the Nats being in full "wait and see" mode rather than treating 2025 like 2011, but with Snell, Fried and Burnes off the market now (two of whom seemed to have picked their destinations based on reasons other than money), I don't really trust the remaining pitchers enough to go big-contract for them. Bell, similarly, seems like an "eh, why not?" move; the contract is reasonable and as John C. notes, our DH production was utterly abysmal.
That leaves 3B and the bullpen as the remaining open questions, unless Rizzo intends another trade. Unfortunately, Bregman is the only real standout at 3B on the FA market and unfortunately he knows it and will get paid for it. I'm not actually sure that Tena/Chapparo/House is actually worse than the remaining FA options...
Going back to last week's discussion: team's need to have 7 to 9 starting pitchers available. You need five for the rotation and stash the others. But where? You can send them to the minors if they still have options, You can try to justify an injured reserve designation; or you can put a starting pitcher in the bullpen. Having two of our "starting pitchers" have bullpen experience (Soroka and Williams) gives Davie a lot of needed flexibility. Hoping we get the good version of both
Yeah, starting depth is important. I don't mind this move or the Soroka move at all; the thing I disliked was the public promise that Soroka would be a starter (which pretty much guarantees him 8-ish starts or so in which he gets the chance to be Corbin 2.0 or 2023 Williams (who was actually worse than Corbin that year)). Letting Parker and/or Herz start the year in the minors, ready to call up, isn't bad, and Herz may long-term be better suited for the pen, anyway. Or one of the Parker/Herz/Irvin/Gray/Cavalli crowd might be part of a trade.
One thing I've been thinking about is that the Nats might actually be a good destination for a Nolan Arenado trade. Washington isn't on his rumored list of acceptable teams, which might kill that deal, but if that's not an objection, consider: Washington has the budget to absorb much of the contract, which means they can probably get him for relatively little in terms of player cost. For the last two years, Arenado's been a roughly league-average bat (106 and 102 wRC+), with above-average 3B defense, netting 2.7 and 3.1 fWAR. He's predicted to put up about 3.0 fWAR in 2025, which would be 3.4 fWAR better than the Nats got out of 3B in 2024. House (the prospective future 3B) had a down year in the minors and definitely doesn't look MLB-ready yet. If House tears up the minors and Arenado sucks, then House can be brought up. If House tears up the minors and Arenado remains good (or even has a bounce-back), well, maybe Abrams can switch from shortstop to DH or a professional gambling career in 2025--in any case, too many good players is a problem teams can deal with. And if House continues to falter, then the position is taken care of. In any case, given the youth of the Nats' pitching staff, adding a second plus defender (Lowe being #1) to the infield would be a good thing. The real negative is the potential of further decline (Arenado's ISO plunged in 2024, so that average bat could become below-average pretty fast, and while projected to be overall above-average in 2025, by 2027 that might not look too pretty).
Fully agreed on Arenado, but you sidestepped the actual problem: I doubt he'll agree to come here.
And I don't move Herz to relief unless his control regresses. Starters who can sustain 10 K/9 over 5+ innings are just too valuable.
According to FG, Gore, Irvin, Herz, and Parker all have options. So the Nats have flexibility there. Dezo, it seems ungracious to limit Soroka's chances to "Corbin 2.0 or 2023 Williams." He does have some upside possibilities rather than DOOM.
I guess that 3b and the bullpen are the only straight up roster questions. But the 2025 Nats are chock full o'questions. Are the kid pitchers for real - will they progress or regress? Can Abrams get his focus back? Will JY learn to hit even a little bit? Will Ruiz ever have a season where he is cromulent as a hitter (like he was in 2023) AND as a defender (like in 2024)? Was Garcia's success last year a one off fluke or a sign that he's turned a corner? Can Woods learn to play good LF defense? Will Crews step up? So many questions.
I wasn't saying that Soroka would necessarily be that bad of a pitcher, just that the public promise to make him a starter meant that if he was that bad the Nats would still give him quite a few extra starts in fulfillment of that promise rather than saying after 2-3 outings (or even in Spring Training if his performance suggested issues), "Nah, you still suck as a starter just like last year; back to the 'pen with you." Though I do realize, it's entirely possible that the promise of being tried as a starter is why he accepted the Nats' offer in the first place (that was cited, for example, as one reason why Williams signed with us pre-2023).
It would be silly to put either of those four in the minors, regardless if they have options or not. All of them proved to be equal major league, starters, and putting them in the minors and retard their progress just to take a flier on Soroka (and to a lesser extent) Williams would be completely idiotic of Rizzo.
Given that unless the Nats sign Max (or someone) that one of Williams/Soroka is going to have to be in the rotation even with the four kids - so only one would potentially be heading to AAA regardless - and that pitcher injuries are a thing, I’m not going to get angry at Rizzo in their behalf until there’s actually an issue.
And because of pitcher injuries being a reality, it’s also easy to see a rational argument for stashing a starter in AAA for when injuries (etc.) happen. That’s an option that they have with the kids, not with Williams or Soroka (either/both of whom could admittedly be stashed in the ‘pen).
Sheriff—having to figure out which of the kid pitchers should be sent to AAA despite MLB level performance would come under the category of “good problems to have”.
Sure, Nats might have a “six man rotation” option or need to send a cromulent MLB pitcher to AAA at the start of 2025. But that assumes nobody among Soroka, Williams, Gore, Irvin, Herz or Parker get injured and/or stink during Spring Training. If it happens, well, there are MUCH worse problems to have.
Post a Comment