The Nats are done for the season.
In reality they were done for the season at the start of the season and the way the ownership approached the building of the team should have made that clear. But as we didn't expect anything from the season we didn't know they were committed to NOT trying until that actually became an issue.
The Nats right now are were the management expected them to be. A team stripped of the usable veteran parts they picked up with one "star" bat in the lineup, though if you asked them that star would have been Wood with Abrams traded and not Abrams with Wood injured. Still I think it's a good sign they didn't trade Abrams and recognized the team, at least offensively, is closer to competitive than not.
What's next is 1) taking care of James Wood and 2) doing their best to answer questions about the team for next year. Who's got a slot taken care of and who will be fighting for a role next year. You can see what they want offensively - Ruiz at C, Abrams at 2B, Nunez at SS, House at 3B, Wood + 2 of Young, Lile and Crews in the OF, a couple of bats from Chaparro, Ortiz, etc. make themselves favorites for 1B and DH. Pitching is more of a mish-mash : Will anyone joine Cavalli in the rotation next year? How many of these RP look like guys you want to say "ok that spot is covered" for?
But functionally on the field answering these questions mean more losses than wins and the slow air leak out of the fun balloon we've been playing keepy-uppy with all season. The good times for 2026 are over.
45 comments:
Why Nunez at SS next year and not Seaver King?
So let's look at the candidates to be in the 2027 rotation. If there even is a 2027.
- Cavalli
- Alvarez
- Kent
- Herz (will he be healthy?)
- Gray (same)
now here's the problem with the Lerners. "That's 5 starters right there, didn't you say you only needed 5? Why should we even think of paying all that crazy baseball-player money for anyone else when we already have 5 pitchers? Plus you got Sykora and Susana and all those guys we traded for. What am I even paying you for? You spreadsheet twerps are a dime a dozen."
Given that the team is fairly close to being competitive (unlike at the beginning of the year, when the general was that this team was closer to the worst in the league), I predict that the Nats will spend more in free agency. Not a ton more, mind more, but I think it will be north of 2026 FA spending.
It’s not like they’ve never spent in the past. There seems to be a belief that the Lerners will never spend any FA money ever again. But history tells us otherwise
“General belief” that is
“Mind you”. Wow, should have proof read my original comment!
Nats farm system now ranked 6th, per MLB (best ranking in about a decade):
https://www.mlb.com/news/in-season-farm-system-rankings-2026
Harper, you are exactly right. This last sweep by the Mets is the final evidence that 2026 is a testing ground for the future and not a winning season. CJ to second, unlocks Seaver arriving. Who else are our candidates for addressing the placeholder 3: Vivas, Tena, and Nunez? Why stretch out Lord instead of giving Will Dion the chance, or, even better, let's also bring up Luis Perales. The slots are there if they are willing to put Irving on ice for a few weeks==, giving us Cavalli, Alvarez, Kent, Perales, and a bullpen game led by Dion.....until Early or DJ Herz arrives and we get to re-sort the order again based on performance. If, as we hope is the case, we finally have the frame of a good team, let's be aggressive in giving MLB time to those who are most advanced.
Welcome back, Harper!
What's your take on Abrams to 2B?
On one hand, it is undeniably true that, for any game with both Abrams and Nuñez in the lineup, the team has a better chance to win with Nuñez at SS. But that was true and obvious months ago when the team should have been including current wins among its priorities. That motivation has to be pretty much zeroed out at this point. So why move Abrams now?
My optimistic guess is that they no longer are trying to trade CJ and therefore it's in their interest to figure out where he best fits. It's not at SS, maybe it's at 2B. Nothing more strategic that trying to put together a better team.
And my pessimistic guess is that the final deadline offers were so poor that they convinced Toboni that the risk/reward of showcasing Abrams at 2B works out in the team's favor. That is, he's given up on convincing teams Abrams can adequately cover short, and is now focused on showing that he can handle second.
I'll take the under.
The 2026 Nats spent $53M on FAs (Stras, TW, Littel, Mikolas, and Oga) out of a total salary of $96M.
Do you think we'll see more than $53M AAV in new commitments or more than $96M in total payroll? I do not.
That seems both sad and correct. There are interesting arms to be sure but they either don't look ready for 2027 in performance or need another season of stretching out. You don't want a guy peaking at 90IP starting in your rotation OD. So this SCREAMS for a true #1 to be added. If they don't add it for next year it's pretty close to another punt season.
As long as the bulk (like 90%) of that is pitching I'd be ok. Give me 40+ million on the mound
Yeah, I wish though it was more top loaded. It's Willits and "surely something else will work out, all these guys look pretty good!"
Thanks - vacation then catching up FROM vacation.
I think the first one SS CJ has the most value and any movement prior to the trade deadline was the Nats saying "that's not where this guy belongs". Now that they are going to keep him they need to get him in a better spot. I still think they could be "blown away" in a deal but I don't think that's coming.
Really though Abrams off of SS is because they need to put Willits there and it'll be easier to do that if Abrams is already at 2B. And if Willits somehow crashed Seaver King is also a better SS.
I think Seaver goes to 3B because I think Eli is the SS of the future. I don't think they bother fiddling with the placeholders because of that. See what these two and Fitz-Gerald end up as will answer that.
Perales needs time to stretch out. They are already slowing him down for this year not want to push it. So don't look for him before next Sept. That's kind of the answer with all the arms. They are going to be very careful because these guys break so easy.
I meant “new FA” spending. I recognize that Stras was a FA contract, but in terms of new money they added in 2026, it want much (Littell, Mikolas, Griffin, a few other guys). I think that number will go up
I'm sorry, but I just don't get the focus on a "true #1". I'd really rather have 5 "true #3" guys. This team, when healthy, hits a TON. All you need is to keep the stiffs off the mound. A bunch of solid regulars, and a bunch of "reliably decent" relievers. Max isn't who won us the trophy in 2019, it was the bats.
You can’t assume that this team will hit a TON next season. Nobody predicted a top 5 offense this year. But here we are. I think if they built based upon a stellar offense they’ll find themselves in a similar position next year.
AND, a lot changes when you get to the post season. If they had a staff full of 3’s, they won’t have any dominant arms to ride on an elimination game. I’d MUCH prefer to have a staff ace, a good 2, a serviceable 3, and some other parts vs a team full of pretty good starters.
I think they're prepping for an off-season extension of CJ. He doesn't have Boras, and 2B is cheaper than SS. $22 million for 7 years with a pair of $10 million buyouts for 8 & 9?
It depends on what you prefer: longer control of King, or seasoning King in the majors so he's not a rookie when the Nats become good in 2028. (Willits is good enough to be a star as a rookie. King maybe not so much.) I could go either way.
Is it any wonder that the three teams with the lowest ERA are all securely in the playoff mix? Pitching wins, everybody knows that.
22 for 7? Ironically, I trust that those are the kinds of offers that Lerner puts together. No wonder we can’t extend anybody! /s
I remain impressed with pundits and posters who confidently proclaim what other people are thinking and proceed to discuss it as verified truth.
I've never been able to read minds--but apparently there are a lot of folks who can.
When I see someone proudly proclaiming their refusal to speculate, I'm always curious how they navigate their daily life.
Imagine if you really had an epistemological system where part of the world was known and understood with complete certainty and all the rest was so obscured in darkness so as to stymie any investigation. How would you pack for a trip? How could you drive? How could you date?
If you really think the world is so inscrutable that you need to literally read minds to have any inkling of people's plans and motivations, well, fair enough. I admire your bravery, if not your judgment. I don't think I'd have the stomach to live in a world like that.
Given the expectations at the beginning, this season has been a win. The new management team was largely responsible for the unexpected first half offensive explosion. Instead of getting too attached, they flipped Mead or Griffith at their highest sell points. In March, most of us wanted Garcia gone; they made him gone AFTER maximizing his value. Trades gave us a lot more to work with in the farm (absent absolute gems, as Harper sez).
Bad bull pen composition is unforgivable after the fact -- but in March few expected the lineup to be that good.
Toboni doesn't seem to be the type of person who would take the job if he wasn't promised a free agency budget for Q4 this year. He's upheld his side of the bargain. Do the Lerners pony up enough free agency money to buy the needed pitching for 2027?
@SMS: I believe that you are misunderstanding MC's point. He's not objecting to speculation as such. There are plenty of comments, heck even in this thread, where people qualify their speculation with various sorts of disclaimers ("I think ... [etc.]"), and that's fine. It's the ones that simply state what others are thinking ("now here's the problem with the Lerners ... "). Those are the ones that create a narrative (which is fine) and then assume it to be true.
@Kevin Rusch you are joking right? The 2019 team had three WAR>5.5 players in the rotation and only one in the lineup. Three starters had postseason ERAs at 2.50 or less. The WS MVP was Strasburg. Pitching absolutely was what made that team.
Nothing in baseball is guaranteed. People say we had a great offensive year so next year we will have one. Ever hear of reversion to the mean. This year was good. We have no idea if it will carry over to the future. There is a feeling that the offense improved because of coaching. Prove it or better yet explain why the same coaches were inept at helping the pitchers. Is it a one off as far as pitching or do we need to hire new pitching coaches. Every year is a new year and team chemistry has to be rebuilt. Don't tell me what is going to happen in 2028 or 2029. No one has a clue. In 2020, did anyone predict that we wouldn't be competitive. If you did, show me the post.
Anon 12:03 Better coaches and better tools (equipment plus things like personal development plans) improve the odds of success but are not the only thing; it still requires the material for coaches to work with. We had more position players nearing MLB-ready, fewer injuries among them, and we made some better choices over the winter for who we picked up. Who saw Mead as a pick-up worth a starting pitcher at the trade deadline. We won't know whether the pitching staff is adding value until we see if they can make more our pitchers better as they mature and/or come off the injury list. I don't disagree about the chemistry part and recognize some regression to the mean might occur.
@John C + Mike Condray -- Ok, I'm fine with that, and I agree that being (or appearing to be) 100% certain about these kind of inferences is annoying.
But, in that case, there's exactly one comment in this post that qualifies, and I think it wouldn't take an undue helping of generosity to read even that comment as a joke and not an actual claim to certain knowledge.
But we all have our particular annoyances, and we'll each have our fun overreacting to them. May there be grace all around.
(just in case this was directed my way) I will try to call out my /sarcasm more consistently in the future :)
@SMS and PBN: no worries. Mike and I are twin brothers, and (speaking for myself) I freely concede that being pedantic and persnickety is pretty much a family tradition. We're a laugh riot at parties.
G Cracka X
(Well, that didn’t work….lets try this again):
Yay or nay: Cade Cavalli is now an ace
https://www.federalbaseball.com/washington-nationals-analysis/93573/nationals-ace-cade-cavalli-nibbling-edge-cy-young-contention
I'm happy to call him a frontline starter or even an SP1, but for me an ace needs to have a multi-year track record of excellence. (Or I suppose be a legit generational prospect like Skenes or Strasburg - I was willing to 100% believe on those two after a dozen ML starts - but that doesn't apply to any of our players or prospects.)
I agree with SMS. Cavalli may be the "ace" on this team and would be for a few others around the league, but he isn't yet up to the standard to lead the kind of rotations the Nats had before the 2021 teardown. If he can do a full season like his last 10 starts, then I'd start to talk about him in the same company as the #2 or #3 guys from those teams. I doubt he's ever going to be like Scherzer or healthy Strasburg, but I think he can be a Gio or Zimmermann level player.
I would be happy to be wrong about that if it turns out he has a HOF-worthy career. For next season, though, I would really like to see them bring in someone more proven.
agreed with kubla, right now Cavalli is sitting in that JZimm tier for me. JZimm at his peak was good for 4-5 WAR and get some fringe Cy Young votes, Cavalli is looking at finishing the season with ~3.5-4 WAR. So he's trending upward, and could certainly surpass JZimm, but "ace" is at minimum 4.5 WAR based on the last few years I'd say (top 10-15 in the league)
One more thought I want to throw in here. Yes, aces are great. I want the team to sign one and I think they're usually worth the money even when they seem like they're not because you can concentrate innings in the playoffs, but we've seen plenty of teams win without them.
For roster construction, the more important label, at least to me, is "good enough that you're happy they're starting a playoff game". A rotation of 3 SP2/3s gives you a puncher's chance in any series. Especially if you have a top 10 offense and a passable SP4.
Cavalli easily clears that bar for me, and right now he's the only one who does. Some pitchers could plausibly join him (Herz, Early, and Alvarez would be my top guesses in descending order) but no one should feel like they've locked their spot except Cavalli.
Man, hearing some of those names jogs my memory. The Nats had some stellar rotations in the 2010’s. Stras, ZNN, Gio (no playoffs! lol), Max, Roark, Fister, Sanchez, 1st year of Corbin. That 2014 rotation was something special.
Having a two (or three) headed monster come playoff time would have me feeling good about our chances. Heck, Stras-Max-Corbin won the WS for us in 2019 (with some clutch hitting from Howie)… ahh those were the days!
Here is another fun thought experiment (to be clear, I’m not saying it’s a realistic one, just a fun one):
Imagine that you get to be Nats GM for the day. Imagine that you are allowed to make a “reverse Juan Soto” trade. Let’s say you would be allowed to make the trade from a financial perspective.
Would you trade Wood, Abrams, Susana, and the five guys from the Gore trade for Soto and his current contract? Why or why not?
(I recognize that I left out Hassell, but he’s no longer on the Nats, and therefore not tradeable)
@Kevin Rusch: "Spreadsheet twerps"?? Where did this quote come from? Read the owners' CBA proposal. (Google it!) It says the Nats will have to spend big to reach the salary floor. The MLPA could nix the floor, but it's a big concession that should be popular among players.
Completely agree with SMS here. The goal is a playoff-caliber rotation, which means three guys who make you confident they can throw a good start against a playoff team. I think Cavalli has now (clearly) reached that level, though whether he can maintain that level is an open question. Gore had reached that level too, though he has had some trouble maintaining it. Unless there are some surprises, I am skeptical there's anyone in the org other than Susana/Sykora who will get there. Herz does seem to have that kind of upside, but he would need significant BB% improvements to make one confident that he could achieve it.
Enjoying the prompts, GCX!
But as much as I love Juan Soto - and he might be my actual favorite hitter in the league - I can't see how anyone would do this. I have Soto's contract as underwater. I had $650M as my redline for the Nats at the time and there's no way that the picture has improved having burnt the first two years.
How about this reframing: how much money would the Mets have to kick in for you to make that trade?
I think our side of the deal would have something like $225M of surplus value, so if you think Soto's contract is a little underwater, let's say the Mets pay half. So like Soto at $25M AAV for the rest of his career. Would that be worth a package like that?
Objectively, I think it probably would be, but I'm still not sure I make the trade. Maybe I'm overly discounting seasons after 2030. I don't know.
I'd be curious what other folks think the line should be.
Good thoughts, SMS. The fact that Soto had a phenomenal season for the Yankees and took them to the brink of a title, and they wanted him back but ultimately didn’t want to match the Mets’ offer, makes me think the Mets overpaid for Soto. Then again, Soto is a potential HOFer, and I recall Harper talking about the preferred value of concentrated WAR (i.e. in general it’s better to have a 6 WAR player than 3 2 WAR players).
I don’t think I would do the deal either, but the Nats might be able to build a contender around Soto and the farm they currently have (though the farm obviously gets weaker in my hypothetical trade given all the players they trade away)
It's a fun thought exercise--but there is no way he is worth it if you have to pay $50m per year AND give away the farm (literally). Mets throwing in $200 million wouldn't change my mind. 1/ Soto is getting paid quarterback money in a sport where one player (no matter how supremely good) cannot carry the team. Compare the unicorn Ohtani with the Angels to the unicorn Ohtani with the Dodgers. 2/ Since we could easily lock in Wood for his entire career for less than Soto money, I am not sure a 1 for 1 trade would be that attractive. I acknowledge it would be a bit riskier since Soto is more established but also much older. 3/ There is not much attention paid to the synergy that comes from multiple great hitters in one lineup. Soto had a great year with the Yankees--no one would ever walk him--casually or intentionally--with Judge hitting behind him. This was not the case in the earlier years with the Nats when he was routinely pitched around. Part of the Nats offensive outbreak this year came from the lesser hitters seeing better pitches to hit. A couple of them look lost now that only CJ is there to protect them.
Entering 8/22, here’s how each team in the Nat’s system ranked YoY for HR and OBP across each league. Whether it’s an influx of talent, improved coaching/player development (or both), this new regime is making a positive impact:
HR
WSH — 183 (1st), 161 (24th)
ROC — 163 (6th), 161 (11th)
HBG — 127 (7th), 86 (12th)
WIL — 116 (10th), 59 (10th)
FBG — 147 (1st), 57 (7th)
OPS
WSH — .758 (2nd), .693 (24th)
ROC — .792 (4th) .750 (12th)
HBG — .735 (8th), .671 (6th)
WIL — .714 (10th), .600 (12th)
FBG — .795 (1st), .637 (12th)
Post a Comment