Fun fact reading the Carter Kieboom articles - just because you play a position doesn't make you a "natural". Kieboom has played a bunch of short. But he's not better than Trea. Trea is good, but Trea isn't special. So that means Carter is maybe ok? Rizzo admitted last year Kieboom was a bat first guy. It's ok to admit while he CAN play SS maybe he shouldn't or at least you shouldn't plan this for the future? I know I'm nitpicking here but if you say a guy is a "natural shortstop" then I think "oh he can easily play 2B or 3B" as opposed to if you say "he's played SS most of his minor league career" which is a lot less committal on his defensive skills. Basically he should be fine, even good, at 2B or 3B eventually but he not might be. It's still up in the air.
Which is important because Kieboom is now part of Plan A. Basically confirming any hope of getting Donaldson is over, Rizzo pushed Kieboom and the recent moves as easily good enough to cover the infield holes. And it might be. You are almost certainly not going to replace 2019 Rendon. But can the Nats get like 80% of it? He's the idea on how that happens with my percent chances attached.
Asdrubal Cabrera has a great season (10%). He was amazing to end the year but has bounced all over the place mainly being around average for full seasons. At 34+ he may have a good full year left but he's probably more likely to crash. His defense was solid last year but in part that's him degrading down the defensive ladder. The former SS aged out of that position, then aged out of 2B.
Carter Kieboom breaks out. (15%) All minor league signs suggest Kieboom will hit at an acceptable level in the majors but there's also not an overwhelming track record of dominance. His best partial season was probably a .296 / .400 / .497 line in Single A back in 2017 which is good but it wouldn't make you excited if he wasn't 19/20 at the time. His short stint last year was so bad that it seems unlikely he'll impress on offense or defense. But again he's young so you are hoping he grows into the role. With that out there I can't expect more from him than say Robles who just three months older than Carter was putting up a basically the same line you see there but in AA in 2017. So I'm hoping for average this year and will be happy if I see that. Better than that will probably have to wait.
Starlin Casto has a great season (25%). Boz points out his great half year but I am more interested in a couple seasons that he was almost there and him being a good 4 years younger than Asdrubal. I don't think there's a star turn at 29/30 here but can he put it together for one year? Give the Nats something like .300 with 25 homers? (He doesn't walk). Plus he aged out of SS but he's still a good 2b meaning he could be a very good 3B. Get all that for one year and you might just give enough to, not replace, but cover for Rendon
Davey works platoon magic (5%). The splits aren't there to suggest this is a thing. Mainly it'd be more luck on getting someone's hot stretch then lucking into another one. Maybe having D not really matter all that much based on balls hit to 3B. It can happen but don't rely on it.
Now this isn't cumulative. You can't look at the above and say there is a 2/3 chance of replacing Rendon. If you start with say As Cab and he's not good for two months, well there's your chance at doing it, even if Castro comes in and give you what we say. 4 months of the above won't cover for Rendon. It'd have to be a - you get good AsCab then he gets hurt or something then you get good Castro. That's more like 5% chance.
How you should read the above is the likelihood things work out for the Nats given their OD choice. Maybe pump it up 5-10 based on things like I described above, a string of moves that happen to work. But I figure best case is 1/3rd chance and they can flub it up to be under 10% if say they start with a platoon idea. That doesn't mean the Nats will have a bad 3B situation, just that they won't come close to replacing Rendon. The most likely scenario in fact is that it's ok to start and just stays ok and you feel the loss of Rendon but it isn't terrible.
The Nats made this bed. Now they have to lie in it (and for the next 4+ months tell us how comfortable they think it is)
Monday, January 13, 2020
Friday, January 10, 2020
Lucky or Unlucky : 2019
Last couple of years I did this but it felt a little out of place at the end during a WS celebration, when saying something like "I don't think Strasburg had the best postseason ever" got me crushed by Nats fans. With some time between then and now and the bad taste of losing Rendon setting the palates a little back to normal, let's go over what went right (and wrong) for the Nats in 2019 that had nothing to do with skill. (regular season only - playoffs is too short really to fit in here)
UNLUCKY
Zimm gets hurt real bad, can't hit and Adams hits a wall. The idea that Zimm would miss time to injury is a given. You peg him for 100 games and hope he gets there. But this year Zimm barely hit half of that (52) and didn't hit even average which he managed to do in most years despite injury. Matt Adams was replacement number one, kept on the team after a good 2018, but he too dropped below average leaving the Nats with a hole at first. Add to the fact neither could field and the Nats had a terrible 1B situation until they defaulted to Howie+
Rosenthal is a disaster The Nats bet a lot on Rosenthal expecting him to either be good and get them a top notch reliever or be bad and just taken as a sunk cost eating up the last spot in the pen. They weren't prepared though for Rosenthal to be completely unusable and one of the worst relief pitchers in baseball in 2019. Sportin a deserved 22.74 ERA Rosenthal was given a couple chances to come back and never did leaving a hole in the Nats bullpen. This was made worse by...
Bullpen pieces take a step back Bullpens are variable things. With a usual mix of inexperienced arms and arms with maybe too much experience pitching minimal innings, you get results bouncing all around the place. Spread this out among 32 teams and you'll get a couple teams get more than their fair share of luck and a couple teams that do not. Guess where the Nats were. Matt Grace, a found piece in 2018 expected to step up, was terrible. Kyle Barraclough, signed aiming for an innings eatings decent arm, was terrible. Doolittle, hurt for much of the year, wasn't sharp. The resulting issues caused a baby with the bathwater situation where the Nats released some guys that might have helped like Sipp and Miller for the sake of starting over. Meanwhile no one stepped up.
Hellickson 5th starter is a no-go You can't expect 30 starts from Hellickson, but you do expect more than 8 and a 6.23 ERA. This arm was going to go sometime, just like it did in 2017 but the Nats didn't have to catch this. They did
7-13 early in close games. Some teams have things not go their way early, which has more impact than late just because it sets up your moves and mindset for the rest of the year. In 1 and 2 run games the Nats were getting crushed and they found themselves in a spot heading into late May where if things didn't turn around soon and consistently they'd have to come up with a new plan.
LUCKY
Howie's best year ever. We kind of think "Howie can hit. Last year was just him being him." No way. Last year was a career high in batting average 30 points over anything recent and 50 over his career average. It was his career high in homers and he posted a isoSLG of .228 easily besting his previous career high of .179 back when he was 27. The guy had been consistently an above average hitter. Last year he put up no-brainer All-Star numbers.
Rendon becomes RENDON. Ok this isn't a big time luck swing but you can't say this is expected because in 6 previous years including the last two pretty healthy ones, Anthony never put up anything like this year. Career highs in BA, homers (by 9), tied for career high in doubles, nearly a career high in walks (4 off). This was the year he put it all together. Is it a sign of a step up or just that one special season? Not the Nats problem anymore and honestly the Angels will probably be happy if he puts up a bunch of years like 2017-18 if it's the latter.
Nearly perfect OF health. Every team gets injuries but the Nats, with a little older team and some injury risks are probably a little more prone to them than other teams. The Nats did have a decent Plan B for the OF in Howie, but once 1B became a debacle they needed him there leaving it important that no OF miss major time, espeically Robles whose defense allows Soto and Eaton to stay in the corners. Soto 150 games, Eaton 151 games, Robles 155 games.
Nearly perfect SP health. Max had his issues at the year end but the big 4 started something like 93% of the games they would given perfect health. Most importantly given Max's short miss time, Strasburg, who seems to miss a month every season, didn't in 2019. As the rotation gets older this is harder to keep up but as long as it does the Nats have a chance.
Super subs You bring in guys and hope they can fill spots. If they are better than expected that's a nice bonus. Hudson put up a 1.44 ERA with some LOB luck and nailed down the bullpen. Asdrubal Cabrera put up a .323 / .404 /.565 line that he'd never be able to do over a season Both these guys were integral to getting the Nats keeping their WC lead and getting into the playoffs.
Things turned around soon and consistently. After the bad start the Nats would go like 36-15 to immediately put themselves back in it by the trade deadline. If they had stumbled at all during this time - like the 3-7 stretch right at this point or the 6-10 run near the end of the year - the Nats are around .500 and might be looking to pack it in.
AS EXPECTED
Gomes/Suzuki platoon, Dozier, Turner, Soto, Robles Eaton all hit reasonable expectations. There were flirtations with major issues at C, 2B, and CF but all held that off. Soto being Soto again rather than taking a clear step back was key to keeping the line-up dangerous enough.
Strasburg, Corbin, Max all pitched like aces. That's why they make the big bucks and until they give you reason to doubt them you expect this.
Sanchez didn't waver. And this is why he got paid what he did.
Nats luck in games evened out in general. The Nats had lousy luck in 1-run games, but in 3 run games were almost unbeatable. Yeah I know 1 run games are closer to .500 splits and good teams make their living in the 3-8 range. Still 22-6 in three run games is out of whack. Basically over the course of the year things evened out and the talent than was mostly healthy was able to shine enough to get them into the playoffs.
As in any good year for any team, the Nats were luckier than unlucky.* Howie's career year countered the 1B failings. The nearly perfect SP health (and talent that the Nats put there) and Hudson's miracle stint countered the 5th starter issues and failures of the pen when it mattered. Rendon's MVP worthy season, the OF health, As Cab's stint along with some timely Parra hits when he first arrived, gave the Nats an extra offensive boost needed after luck swung against them early. It wasn't a big swing in their favor but it was enough.
*basic truth is that with 5 teams in direction competiton, and 10 more sort of, a couple teams are going to get really lucky, a couple more sort of lucky, etc. etc. Because some other good team will get lucky it's hard for a good team, unless set up to be REALLY good, to get a little unlucky and still make it through. You need luck.
UNLUCKY
Zimm gets hurt real bad, can't hit and Adams hits a wall. The idea that Zimm would miss time to injury is a given. You peg him for 100 games and hope he gets there. But this year Zimm barely hit half of that (52) and didn't hit even average which he managed to do in most years despite injury. Matt Adams was replacement number one, kept on the team after a good 2018, but he too dropped below average leaving the Nats with a hole at first. Add to the fact neither could field and the Nats had a terrible 1B situation until they defaulted to Howie+
Rosenthal is a disaster The Nats bet a lot on Rosenthal expecting him to either be good and get them a top notch reliever or be bad and just taken as a sunk cost eating up the last spot in the pen. They weren't prepared though for Rosenthal to be completely unusable and one of the worst relief pitchers in baseball in 2019. Sportin a deserved 22.74 ERA Rosenthal was given a couple chances to come back and never did leaving a hole in the Nats bullpen. This was made worse by...
Bullpen pieces take a step back Bullpens are variable things. With a usual mix of inexperienced arms and arms with maybe too much experience pitching minimal innings, you get results bouncing all around the place. Spread this out among 32 teams and you'll get a couple teams get more than their fair share of luck and a couple teams that do not. Guess where the Nats were. Matt Grace, a found piece in 2018 expected to step up, was terrible. Kyle Barraclough, signed aiming for an innings eatings decent arm, was terrible. Doolittle, hurt for much of the year, wasn't sharp. The resulting issues caused a baby with the bathwater situation where the Nats released some guys that might have helped like Sipp and Miller for the sake of starting over. Meanwhile no one stepped up.
Hellickson 5th starter is a no-go You can't expect 30 starts from Hellickson, but you do expect more than 8 and a 6.23 ERA. This arm was going to go sometime, just like it did in 2017 but the Nats didn't have to catch this. They did
7-13 early in close games. Some teams have things not go their way early, which has more impact than late just because it sets up your moves and mindset for the rest of the year. In 1 and 2 run games the Nats were getting crushed and they found themselves in a spot heading into late May where if things didn't turn around soon and consistently they'd have to come up with a new plan.
LUCKY
Howie's best year ever. We kind of think "Howie can hit. Last year was just him being him." No way. Last year was a career high in batting average 30 points over anything recent and 50 over his career average. It was his career high in homers and he posted a isoSLG of .228 easily besting his previous career high of .179 back when he was 27. The guy had been consistently an above average hitter. Last year he put up no-brainer All-Star numbers.
Rendon becomes RENDON. Ok this isn't a big time luck swing but you can't say this is expected because in 6 previous years including the last two pretty healthy ones, Anthony never put up anything like this year. Career highs in BA, homers (by 9), tied for career high in doubles, nearly a career high in walks (4 off). This was the year he put it all together. Is it a sign of a step up or just that one special season? Not the Nats problem anymore and honestly the Angels will probably be happy if he puts up a bunch of years like 2017-18 if it's the latter.
Nearly perfect OF health. Every team gets injuries but the Nats, with a little older team and some injury risks are probably a little more prone to them than other teams. The Nats did have a decent Plan B for the OF in Howie, but once 1B became a debacle they needed him there leaving it important that no OF miss major time, espeically Robles whose defense allows Soto and Eaton to stay in the corners. Soto 150 games, Eaton 151 games, Robles 155 games.
Nearly perfect SP health. Max had his issues at the year end but the big 4 started something like 93% of the games they would given perfect health. Most importantly given Max's short miss time, Strasburg, who seems to miss a month every season, didn't in 2019. As the rotation gets older this is harder to keep up but as long as it does the Nats have a chance.
Super subs You bring in guys and hope they can fill spots. If they are better than expected that's a nice bonus. Hudson put up a 1.44 ERA with some LOB luck and nailed down the bullpen. Asdrubal Cabrera put up a .323 / .404 /.565 line that he'd never be able to do over a season Both these guys were integral to getting the Nats keeping their WC lead and getting into the playoffs.
Things turned around soon and consistently. After the bad start the Nats would go like 36-15 to immediately put themselves back in it by the trade deadline. If they had stumbled at all during this time - like the 3-7 stretch right at this point or the 6-10 run near the end of the year - the Nats are around .500 and might be looking to pack it in.
AS EXPECTED
Gomes/Suzuki platoon, Dozier, Turner, Soto, Robles Eaton all hit reasonable expectations. There were flirtations with major issues at C, 2B, and CF but all held that off. Soto being Soto again rather than taking a clear step back was key to keeping the line-up dangerous enough.
Strasburg, Corbin, Max all pitched like aces. That's why they make the big bucks and until they give you reason to doubt them you expect this.
Sanchez didn't waver. And this is why he got paid what he did.
Nats luck in games evened out in general. The Nats had lousy luck in 1-run games, but in 3 run games were almost unbeatable. Yeah I know 1 run games are closer to .500 splits and good teams make their living in the 3-8 range. Still 22-6 in three run games is out of whack. Basically over the course of the year things evened out and the talent than was mostly healthy was able to shine enough to get them into the playoffs.
As in any good year for any team, the Nats were luckier than unlucky.* Howie's career year countered the 1B failings. The nearly perfect SP health (and talent that the Nats put there) and Hudson's miracle stint countered the 5th starter issues and failures of the pen when it mattered. Rendon's MVP worthy season, the OF health, As Cab's stint along with some timely Parra hits when he first arrived, gave the Nats an extra offensive boost needed after luck swung against them early. It wasn't a big swing in their favor but it was enough.
*basic truth is that with 5 teams in direction competiton, and 10 more sort of, a couple teams are going to get really lucky, a couple more sort of lucky, etc. etc. Because some other good team will get lucky it's hard for a good team, unless set up to be REALLY good, to get a little unlucky and still make it through. You need luck.
Tuesday, January 07, 2020
Hudson's back - so no Donaldson?
The Nats have officially brought back Daniel Hudson. It was clear that Hudson wanted a longer deal, but it's now clear that no one wanted to give him one. So two years 11 million and he's back in the Nats pen where he thrived in the back half of 2019.
Personally I don't believe this sets the Nats pen or makes it "imposing". This is a less impressive trio than Doo, Hudson, Kintzler and we all know how that worked out. Is it reasonably contructed? Yes! and Nats pens aren't always so. Could it be great? Sure. I mean any reasonably constructed pen can - look at the Nats in 2016. Could it be below average? Yep. That too. I wouldn't bet on it but I wouldn't be surprised either. When I'd be surprised though is if this pen was bad.
In short : I think the bullpen should be expected to be above average but there's a lot of variability in pens.
How do I feel about the Hudson deal in general... I kind of don't love it. He wasn't all that good in 2018 or 2017 or 2016. He was merely ok in 2019 before joining the Nats. His arm is injury prone, he missed time as recently as 2018 and last years 83 IP were the most innings he's thrown since 2011. We're talking Obama's first term here, Miley Cyrus was still Hannah Montana! His 2019 was helped by an unrepeatable LOB% (81.8) and a HR/FB rate not likely to be repeated (8.6%). Somehow this happened while giving up fewer GBs and more hard hit balls. Basically remember that Dodgers catcher almost hitting it out? That was Daniel Hudson in a nutshell last year. Can he repeat getting guys to almost hit it out? I doubt it
It doesn't mean he can't be a useful bullpen piece, but for about a million more you could have signed Clippard and Stammen and gotten two useful pieces, with less injury risk.
Still it's hard to fault the Nats for doing something where they usually do nothing. This is a big improvement over the option of whoever would fill the last spot in the pen that now gets bumped out. The real problem is though that the Nats now seem out of the running for Donaldson. They say the contract is still out there and I believe them, in part because I think the deferments make them money to cover the cap hit. But it's hard to see him coming to a team paying him less when the other offers are also from contending teams.
The Nats had a very good offense last year but a big chunk of that was Rendon. Losing him hurts. There's also the fact that Kendrick had a career year that he's unlikely to repeat. Eaton's trending wrong as is Suzuki. The Nats have some decent options out there in Thames and Castro but all these guys are more likely to be average than good. Can Turner step up? I don't know he's been playing long enough to kind of accept he's a good but not great bat. Can Robles? Possibly - he is young. But I'm not enthused by what I saw last year. Maybe average. Can Soto? I think he can get even better... if they are bothering to pitch to him. I don't think it'll be a bad offense if they don't replace Rendon with Donaldson (or someone in trade) but it'll be one that's likely to be around average, meaning the pitching has to be great to compensate.
And the pitching can be great. It has been. It's got three aces and a pen that should be good. But that's a lot of pressure on a rotation that features a lot of age and went through a lot of wear and tear last year.
Personally I don't believe this sets the Nats pen or makes it "imposing". This is a less impressive trio than Doo, Hudson, Kintzler and we all know how that worked out. Is it reasonably contructed? Yes! and Nats pens aren't always so. Could it be great? Sure. I mean any reasonably constructed pen can - look at the Nats in 2016. Could it be below average? Yep. That too. I wouldn't bet on it but I wouldn't be surprised either. When I'd be surprised though is if this pen was bad.
In short : I think the bullpen should be expected to be above average but there's a lot of variability in pens.
How do I feel about the Hudson deal in general... I kind of don't love it. He wasn't all that good in 2018 or 2017 or 2016. He was merely ok in 2019 before joining the Nats. His arm is injury prone, he missed time as recently as 2018 and last years 83 IP were the most innings he's thrown since 2011. We're talking Obama's first term here, Miley Cyrus was still Hannah Montana! His 2019 was helped by an unrepeatable LOB% (81.8) and a HR/FB rate not likely to be repeated (8.6%). Somehow this happened while giving up fewer GBs and more hard hit balls. Basically remember that Dodgers catcher almost hitting it out? That was Daniel Hudson in a nutshell last year. Can he repeat getting guys to almost hit it out? I doubt it
It doesn't mean he can't be a useful bullpen piece, but for about a million more you could have signed Clippard and Stammen and gotten two useful pieces, with less injury risk.
Still it's hard to fault the Nats for doing something where they usually do nothing. This is a big improvement over the option of whoever would fill the last spot in the pen that now gets bumped out. The real problem is though that the Nats now seem out of the running for Donaldson. They say the contract is still out there and I believe them, in part because I think the deferments make them money to cover the cap hit. But it's hard to see him coming to a team paying him less when the other offers are also from contending teams.
The Nats had a very good offense last year but a big chunk of that was Rendon. Losing him hurts. There's also the fact that Kendrick had a career year that he's unlikely to repeat. Eaton's trending wrong as is Suzuki. The Nats have some decent options out there in Thames and Castro but all these guys are more likely to be average than good. Can Turner step up? I don't know he's been playing long enough to kind of accept he's a good but not great bat. Can Robles? Possibly - he is young. But I'm not enthused by what I saw last year. Maybe average. Can Soto? I think he can get even better... if they are bothering to pitch to him. I don't think it'll be a bad offense if they don't replace Rendon with Donaldson (or someone in trade) but it'll be one that's likely to be around average, meaning the pitching has to be great to compensate.
And the pitching can be great. It has been. It's got three aces and a pen that should be good. But that's a lot of pressure on a rotation that features a lot of age and went through a lot of wear and tear last year.
Monday, January 06, 2020
Monday Quickie - Lots of stuff
Remember last week when I noted nothing happened when we were gone? Well now stuff happened - a lot of stuff! Over the weekend the Nats signed both AsCab and Starlin Castro. The question is... what does this mean?
Option 1 : They hate Kieboom. This sets up 2B and the backup MI as they try to bring in Donaldson.
Option 2 : They trade Kieboom. This sets up 2B and the backup MI as they try to trade for maybe Kris Bryant.
Option 3 : They are out of the 3B market. This sets up 3B and the backup MI as they get ready to give Kieboom his long trial
Take your pick. To me #1 is the least likely. Donaldson has seemingly set his asking price (like 4/110) and also presumably has a better deal on the table from the Twins than the Nats. Sure maybe "defending champs" speaks to him and he'll take whatever deferred heavy deal the Nats have out there, but if it wasn't about money he could have done that already.
#2 is more possible. Yes Byant will be a FA in a couple seasons, but he's also in that underpaid control period of this contract making him a value.
#3 is also possible though then you'd have to wonder what happens to the money the Nats would have, but didn't spend, as there aren't a lot of options out there on where to place it and "the Lerners bank account" is the one we want to see the least.
How are these guys? I like Castro. He likes to play especially for winning teams. He's ok! Probably a little better than he was last year. Boz seems to think his 2nd half could portend a break out. Oddly enough he doesn't say that for AsCab who had an equally crazy August and September. We know him. He is also ok. But older. And at times it looked like the Nats were lucky to get what they got because what were you swinging at Asdrubal?
My take is that this is a fine platoon or starter/back-up situation for the 7th or 8th man in your line-up. You can get an average player from these two and for about 8-9 million that's a good deal. Much like Will Harris though these are the finishing touches around picking up someone to replace Rendon... or honestly to replace like 80% of Rendon. If they get that - all is well - successful off-season, time to defend. If they don't then this team is a step back from last year and while that probably means a similar end spot for the Nats (comfortably in the WC discussion with around 90 wins) it's not where they could have or should have been, imo. But let's see
Option 1 : They hate Kieboom. This sets up 2B and the backup MI as they try to bring in Donaldson.
Option 2 : They trade Kieboom. This sets up 2B and the backup MI as they try to trade for maybe Kris Bryant.
Option 3 : They are out of the 3B market. This sets up 3B and the backup MI as they get ready to give Kieboom his long trial
Take your pick. To me #1 is the least likely. Donaldson has seemingly set his asking price (like 4/110) and also presumably has a better deal on the table from the Twins than the Nats. Sure maybe "defending champs" speaks to him and he'll take whatever deferred heavy deal the Nats have out there, but if it wasn't about money he could have done that already.
#2 is more possible. Yes Byant will be a FA in a couple seasons, but he's also in that underpaid control period of this contract making him a value.
#3 is also possible though then you'd have to wonder what happens to the money the Nats would have, but didn't spend, as there aren't a lot of options out there on where to place it and "the Lerners bank account" is the one we want to see the least.
How are these guys? I like Castro. He likes to play especially for winning teams. He's ok! Probably a little better than he was last year. Boz seems to think his 2nd half could portend a break out. Oddly enough he doesn't say that for AsCab who had an equally crazy August and September. We know him. He is also ok. But older. And at times it looked like the Nats were lucky to get what they got because what were you swinging at Asdrubal?
My take is that this is a fine platoon or starter/back-up situation for the 7th or 8th man in your line-up. You can get an average player from these two and for about 8-9 million that's a good deal. Much like Will Harris though these are the finishing touches around picking up someone to replace Rendon... or honestly to replace like 80% of Rendon. If they get that - all is well - successful off-season, time to defend. If they don't then this team is a step back from last year and while that probably means a similar end spot for the Nats (comfortably in the WC discussion with around 90 wins) it's not where they could have or should have been, imo. But let's see
Friday, January 03, 2020
Will Harris is good. Will Harris be good?
The Nats made a move to shore up the pen which by the end of the season was Doolittle, Hudson, and that's it. Hudson wanted to come back but the Nats were reluctant to bet more than two years on his oft-injured usually not too good arm. Instead they went with Will Harris who you may remember from such pitches as the one to Howie Kendrick that he hit for a home run in game 7. Harris was probably the second best reliever available in free agency* and the Nats gave him a contract that looks today to be on market. Three years / 24 million. So a good deal or not?
Why it may be a good deal:
Harris has been nothing if not consistent. Since breaking out late in life (28) for the D-backs in 2013, Will has put together an annual performance that I'd call just short of dominance. (His ERA doesn't reflect his performance as happens at times with relievers - he is more of a 2.50 - 3.00 ERA guy) He does everything you want a pitcher to do - keeps guys off base with low hit rate and low walk rates, strikes out a bunch, doesn't give up a lot of homeruns. Nothing is special - even the combination of all of them - but while a lot of those special guys flash briefly then go out, he's right there as one of the best relievers of the past 5+ years.
He's also been healthy appearing in 60+ games in 4 of the last 5 years and the other year appearing in 46. It's really hard to fault this as a move for 2020, and if you are looking "beyond Doolittle" he could easily slip into that same "not dominant but very good and will get the job done" role in 2021
Why it may not be a good deal:
Harris was the 2nd best reliever on the market because of his age. He's 35, and will turn 36 during next season. Take that for what it is. There was a drop in his K rate despite a league wide increase in Ks and fancy stat digging shows fewer chases, swings and misses, and more overall contact. That worked out in 2019 as that contact seemed to turn into GBs but Harris isn't consistently an overwhelming GB pitcher and those numbers coupled with a less dominant GB/FB split like 2015 or 2017 may spell trouble.
While a key piece to the playoff runs of the Astros in previous years, this year they really leaned on him more, 10 IP pitched in the playoffs in 12 appearances, compared to previous highs of 4 IP in 6 appearances in 2017. That marks his most work in a season outside of 2015. That didn't seem to bother him then, but he was also 30, not 34 carrying 4 more years of wear and tear.
My thoughts :
It's a necessary and good deal and I'm glad the Nats made it. There is a very good chance Harris is good next year and worth the money he's being paid, even if he slightly regresses. There is a chance at his age of a sharp and quick decline but the Nats are playing a "win now" game** using veterans to supplement an older rotation that's still performing at a high level. This fits in with that plan. Where does it leave the Nats in year 3? Worry about that in year 2.
*to Will Smith who signed with the Braves. You maybe could argue Betances (Mets) is better on talent but he's been hurt so much.
** by that I mean going with older talent, not spending a ton of money. It's the Nats
Why it may be a good deal:
Harris has been nothing if not consistent. Since breaking out late in life (28) for the D-backs in 2013, Will has put together an annual performance that I'd call just short of dominance. (His ERA doesn't reflect his performance as happens at times with relievers - he is more of a 2.50 - 3.00 ERA guy) He does everything you want a pitcher to do - keeps guys off base with low hit rate and low walk rates, strikes out a bunch, doesn't give up a lot of homeruns. Nothing is special - even the combination of all of them - but while a lot of those special guys flash briefly then go out, he's right there as one of the best relievers of the past 5+ years.
He's also been healthy appearing in 60+ games in 4 of the last 5 years and the other year appearing in 46. It's really hard to fault this as a move for 2020, and if you are looking "beyond Doolittle" he could easily slip into that same "not dominant but very good and will get the job done" role in 2021
Why it may not be a good deal:
Harris was the 2nd best reliever on the market because of his age. He's 35, and will turn 36 during next season. Take that for what it is. There was a drop in his K rate despite a league wide increase in Ks and fancy stat digging shows fewer chases, swings and misses, and more overall contact. That worked out in 2019 as that contact seemed to turn into GBs but Harris isn't consistently an overwhelming GB pitcher and those numbers coupled with a less dominant GB/FB split like 2015 or 2017 may spell trouble.
While a key piece to the playoff runs of the Astros in previous years, this year they really leaned on him more, 10 IP pitched in the playoffs in 12 appearances, compared to previous highs of 4 IP in 6 appearances in 2017. That marks his most work in a season outside of 2015. That didn't seem to bother him then, but he was also 30, not 34 carrying 4 more years of wear and tear.
My thoughts :
It's a necessary and good deal and I'm glad the Nats made it. There is a very good chance Harris is good next year and worth the money he's being paid, even if he slightly regresses. There is a chance at his age of a sharp and quick decline but the Nats are playing a "win now" game** using veterans to supplement an older rotation that's still performing at a high level. This fits in with that plan. Where does it leave the Nats in year 3? Worry about that in year 2.
*to Will Smith who signed with the Braves. You maybe could argue Betances (Mets) is better on talent but he's been hurt so much.
** by that I mean going with older talent, not spending a ton of money. It's the Nats
Thursday, January 02, 2020
Some number of days until pitchers and catchers
You are all elementary school graduates. you can figure out the number yourself.
Ok so I took the holiday season off and let's see what I missed - all the Nats transactions from Dec 17th until now...
If you must know, Mario Sanchez, not to be confused with America's Latin Sweetheart, Mario Lopez, was in the Nats system last year. He had a decent quick early stint in Harrisburg, was pushed up to AAA and got hammered, then spent the rest of the year in AA. At 25, he's basically org filler.
What happened in the NL East?
Braves did nothing other than anger a fanbase waiting for them to do something else.
Mets, who had just signed Rick Porcello on the 16th giving them the deepest (though not best) rotation in the East if they choose to keep Wacha a starter, signed Dellin Betances. If he's healthy it should be a really good move for the pen. Of course Diaz should have been a great move and look how that turned out.
Phillies, signed a bunch of garbage to minor league deals. The only one I care about is Josh Harrison, who was a decent major leaguer before last year.
What happened in the rest of the majors?
Ok the big moves were
Donaldson seems to have a four year offer out there from the Twins and a "four"* year offer out there from the Nats as well. Still unsigned but you have to think 4 years is what he was looking for so I'd imagine he'll take that Twins offer soon if the Braves or someone else don't counter it. After that the dominoes may fall in a trade direction with both Kris Bryant and Nolan Arenado rumored. My guess is Bryant has a real chance to be dealt while Arenado is out there only to see what kind of haul they can get back. Everyone is always on the table.
Caught up?
Basically we're where we were when we left off. Nats looking to secure 3B with Donaldson and if not, then moving to relief help (evne though they could really use, and afford to, do both) neither situation is off the table yet.
*oh as if it doesn't have significant deferred money
Ok so I took the holiday season off and let's see what I missed - all the Nats transactions from Dec 17th until now...
- 12/18/19 Washington Nationals signed free agent RHP Mario Sanchez to a minor league contract.
If you must know, Mario Sanchez, not to be confused with America's Latin Sweetheart, Mario Lopez, was in the Nats system last year. He had a decent quick early stint in Harrisburg, was pushed up to AAA and got hammered, then spent the rest of the year in AA. At 25, he's basically org filler.
What happened in the NL East?
Braves did nothing other than anger a fanbase waiting for them to do something else.
Mets, who had just signed Rick Porcello on the 16th giving them the deepest (though not best) rotation in the East if they choose to keep Wacha a starter, signed Dellin Betances. If he's healthy it should be a really good move for the pen. Of course Diaz should have been a great move and look how that turned out.
Phillies, signed a bunch of garbage to minor league deals. The only one I care about is Josh Harrison, who was a decent major leaguer before last year.
What happened in the rest of the majors?
Ok the big moves were
- Bumgarner, Calhoun to the D-backs
- Avisail Garcia, Eric Sogard, and Justin Smoak to the Brewers
- Wade Miley to the Reds
- Tanner Roark, Hyun-Jin Ryu to the Blue Jays
- Gerrit Cole to the Yankees
- Gio, Kuechel to the White Sox
- Clippard, Romo, Hill, Bailey to the Twins
- Teheran to the Rangers
- CJ Cron and John Schoop to the Tigers
- Martin Maldanado to the Astros
- Maikel Franco to the Royals
Donaldson seems to have a four year offer out there from the Twins and a "four"* year offer out there from the Nats as well. Still unsigned but you have to think 4 years is what he was looking for so I'd imagine he'll take that Twins offer soon if the Braves or someone else don't counter it. After that the dominoes may fall in a trade direction with both Kris Bryant and Nolan Arenado rumored. My guess is Bryant has a real chance to be dealt while Arenado is out there only to see what kind of haul they can get back. Everyone is always on the table.
Caught up?
Basically we're where we were when we left off. Nats looking to secure 3B with Donaldson and if not, then moving to relief help (evne though they could really use, and afford to, do both) neither situation is off the table yet.
*oh as if it doesn't have significant deferred money
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Offseason Position Discussion : Outfield
Last year discussion revisited
The assumption was, at the time, Bryce would walk and Eaton, Soto, and Robles/MAT would fill out the outfield. Bryce walking we've discussed plenty at the time. Why the rest? Eaton tried to force himself back from injury in 2018 but after surgery and needed rest came back to have a very Eaton year cementing his spot. Soto busted out, nearly winning the Rookie of the Year earning the second spot. The third spot was Robles' to lose given his prospect status, strong audition, and MAT's failure at a larger role.
What happened? Eaton was Eaton, Soto kept being Soto, and Robles did well enough to hold onto CF the entire year. They played 151, 150, and 155 games respectively meaning the Nats didn't have to worry about throwing a Kendrick out there, or seeing if MAT would bounce back. If you want to be critical Eaton definitely took a step back, going from an above average player to a more average one, and Robles really hit JUST well enough at times to hold on (his fielding was as advertised). Soto? No complaints.
Presumed Plan : Same.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Eaton is cheap. The other two guys are ridiculously so. They all performed well enough or better last year. They had the third best OF in the NL combined and you may be able to argue second (the drop to 4th is big) There's not really a question here unless you were going to try to shake things up to get a large improvement over Eaton or Robles (like a Betts trade) to cover for the loss of Rendon
Problems with Presumed Plan : Eaton is old and trending the wrong direction and Robles didn't break out as you hoped. A lot of the production you expect from the OF rests with Soto and he's not quite to the team carrying level. A Soto and Robles repeat and a Eaton drop would still be a fine outfield, but when you need to cover for the loss of Rendon you need to be getting better, not worse.
My take :You do what the Nats are doing and hope for the best. It might be worthwhile to grab whatever decent OF doesn't end up getting a starting role for cheap (Cluberson, Dyson, Pillar, Maybin or everyone's hope : Puig) given the Nats needed depth and a guy who may potentially have a good year if needed.
I'm not particularly worried about any single position though I do think the group as a whole may disappoint. Eaton has the type of all-around skills that may slow a fall much like it did for Werth. But he still could easily fall below average over all. Robles' defense is great and takes over MATs role as the CF protecting questionable corners, all he has to do it hit ok really. He may bust out but he may also suffer with the league now having a large book on him. He still strikes out a ton and that's always the most worrying sign for a young player, especially one that doesn't rely on moonshot power. Soto of course is pretty much set. He's proven he can hit and his fielding, while suspect, is not anything that demands he get pulled into a less demanding position immediately. In fact he probably got a little better last year? Maybe? Though chances of him every being good are slim. Hitting wise the one "worry" is that well.. Soto did hit worse last year. Just a smidge but adjust for the offensive environment and it did happen. So what? Well the Nats NEED Soto to become SOTO now. To hit like Rendon did last year, like Bryce did in 2015 (well 90% of that) and it's possible it's just not there?
We compare Soto with the greats because that's the kind of start he had. But when did these comparison have their first MVP-type year? Mantle? Age 20. Aaron? 22. Mays? 23( but did go fight in a war at age 22). Trout? 20. Bryce (who's not with these guys but is compared to Soto for obvious reasons)? 22. Soto is going into his 21 season so there is a couple years for it to happen, but for a couple guys here it already did.
Oh just for fun remember mid year the Trout vs Soto comparisons were floating around and I was making sure you didn't think Soto was Trout because Trout is maybe the best player we'll see? Well here's the first 266 games for each
Soto : .287 / .403 / .535 56 homers
Trout : .309 / .383 / .540 50 homers
Seems pretty even. You may say Soto has an edge but first Soto at this point has about 120 more PAs so figure Trout for 5-6 more homers given equal PAs. Second, Soto has hit in a far more favorable offensive environment. Adjust for that and Trout takes the slight lead. It's still arguable but then you look at the speed (17 SBs for Soto vs 73 for Trout) and the very good CF defense vs maybe passable LF defense and it isn't close.
Ok But Trout IS slightly older at the time. Eventually we stop thinking about that but just for kicks let's give Soto another year to kick into high gear. About what would Soto have to hit in his next 150 games to hang with or pass Trout? Well by my calculations it would be something like :
.322 / .440 / .580
Oh wait... that's 2013/2014 vs now... adjust up a little .325 / .450 / .595?
He needs to arguably the best hitter in baseball next year to keep the batting argument going.
Longwinded aside to say : Soto is no Trout but he's still great but maybe the Nats need him to be Trout, at least at the plate.
Out of the box suggestion :
There's a bunch of eh OFs available that can replace Eaton for cheaper and let's face it, it's very unlikely you are going to bring him back for 2021 for 10.5 million. So trade him now. OF depth is a concern for a lot of teams, even contenders. Work something out with the A's or the D-backs or back to the White Sox! Anyway trade Eaton, sign a Maybin or something and grab something that might turn into something.
The assumption was, at the time, Bryce would walk and Eaton, Soto, and Robles/MAT would fill out the outfield. Bryce walking we've discussed plenty at the time. Why the rest? Eaton tried to force himself back from injury in 2018 but after surgery and needed rest came back to have a very Eaton year cementing his spot. Soto busted out, nearly winning the Rookie of the Year earning the second spot. The third spot was Robles' to lose given his prospect status, strong audition, and MAT's failure at a larger role.
What happened? Eaton was Eaton, Soto kept being Soto, and Robles did well enough to hold onto CF the entire year. They played 151, 150, and 155 games respectively meaning the Nats didn't have to worry about throwing a Kendrick out there, or seeing if MAT would bounce back. If you want to be critical Eaton definitely took a step back, going from an above average player to a more average one, and Robles really hit JUST well enough at times to hold on (his fielding was as advertised). Soto? No complaints.
Presumed Plan : Same.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Eaton is cheap. The other two guys are ridiculously so. They all performed well enough or better last year. They had the third best OF in the NL combined and you may be able to argue second (the drop to 4th is big) There's not really a question here unless you were going to try to shake things up to get a large improvement over Eaton or Robles (like a Betts trade) to cover for the loss of Rendon
Problems with Presumed Plan : Eaton is old and trending the wrong direction and Robles didn't break out as you hoped. A lot of the production you expect from the OF rests with Soto and he's not quite to the team carrying level. A Soto and Robles repeat and a Eaton drop would still be a fine outfield, but when you need to cover for the loss of Rendon you need to be getting better, not worse.
My take :You do what the Nats are doing and hope for the best. It might be worthwhile to grab whatever decent OF doesn't end up getting a starting role for cheap (Cluberson, Dyson, Pillar, Maybin or everyone's hope : Puig) given the Nats needed depth and a guy who may potentially have a good year if needed.
I'm not particularly worried about any single position though I do think the group as a whole may disappoint. Eaton has the type of all-around skills that may slow a fall much like it did for Werth. But he still could easily fall below average over all. Robles' defense is great and takes over MATs role as the CF protecting questionable corners, all he has to do it hit ok really. He may bust out but he may also suffer with the league now having a large book on him. He still strikes out a ton and that's always the most worrying sign for a young player, especially one that doesn't rely on moonshot power. Soto of course is pretty much set. He's proven he can hit and his fielding, while suspect, is not anything that demands he get pulled into a less demanding position immediately. In fact he probably got a little better last year? Maybe? Though chances of him every being good are slim. Hitting wise the one "worry" is that well.. Soto did hit worse last year. Just a smidge but adjust for the offensive environment and it did happen. So what? Well the Nats NEED Soto to become SOTO now. To hit like Rendon did last year, like Bryce did in 2015 (well 90% of that) and it's possible it's just not there?
We compare Soto with the greats because that's the kind of start he had. But when did these comparison have their first MVP-type year? Mantle? Age 20. Aaron? 22. Mays? 23( but did go fight in a war at age 22). Trout? 20. Bryce (who's not with these guys but is compared to Soto for obvious reasons)? 22. Soto is going into his 21 season so there is a couple years for it to happen, but for a couple guys here it already did.
Oh just for fun remember mid year the Trout vs Soto comparisons were floating around and I was making sure you didn't think Soto was Trout because Trout is maybe the best player we'll see? Well here's the first 266 games for each
Soto : .287 / .403 / .535 56 homers
Trout : .309 / .383 / .540 50 homers
Seems pretty even. You may say Soto has an edge but first Soto at this point has about 120 more PAs so figure Trout for 5-6 more homers given equal PAs. Second, Soto has hit in a far more favorable offensive environment. Adjust for that and Trout takes the slight lead. It's still arguable but then you look at the speed (17 SBs for Soto vs 73 for Trout) and the very good CF defense vs maybe passable LF defense and it isn't close.
Ok But Trout IS slightly older at the time. Eventually we stop thinking about that but just for kicks let's give Soto another year to kick into high gear. About what would Soto have to hit in his next 150 games to hang with or pass Trout? Well by my calculations it would be something like :
.322 / .440 / .580
Oh wait... that's 2013/2014 vs now... adjust up a little .325 / .450 / .595?
He needs to arguably the best hitter in baseball next year to keep the batting argument going.
Longwinded aside to say : Soto is no Trout but he's still great but maybe the Nats need him to be Trout, at least at the plate.
Out of the box suggestion :
There's a bunch of eh OFs available that can replace Eaton for cheaper and let's face it, it's very unlikely you are going to bring him back for 2021 for 10.5 million. So trade him now. OF depth is a concern for a lot of teams, even contenders. Work something out with the A's or the D-backs or back to the White Sox! Anyway trade Eaton, sign a Maybin or something and grab something that might turn into something.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Rendon's an Angel now
RIP*, Sweet Prince.
So Rendon is gone and as losing Rendon can go he went to probably the best place he could for the Nats. Out of the NL East, Out of the NL, Not on an AL team that seems to be an immediate playoff threat. Can't ask for more there.
Of course that is an ancillary benefit that tries to cover for the HUGE loss that losing Rendon is. Rendon has been a Top 5ish player in baseball over the past 3 years. There are precious few players that can replace that production. Donaldson and Bryant, two names being bandied about, are All-Star level talents and you'd still not expect them to do it. No, accept facts - the Nats AREN'T going to replace Rendon. They are only going to patch the hole as best they can.
What does that mean? We're not sure yet. Could mean laying out money or making a trade for the guys I just noted to cover 80% of what Rendon can do. Could mean putting that money elsewhere like in the pen. Let's see what the options are today
Sign Donaldson : Donaldson is a nice fielding consistent hitter who had some great years with the Blue Jays a few seasons ago, but seems to have aged out of it. He'll be 34 next year and likely will give you good production for a year or two, after that it becomes dicier. The problem is, as everyone's Rendon back-up plan, he has no incentive to take a deal that's 2 years with options. He is going to get 3 years guaranteed, maybe 4, and he's going to get paid. 3/75? 4/80? We'll see how this shakes out but he is not going to be a cheap fix for anyone and it's tough to see the Nats matching what will likely end up being an overpay by some one.
Sign Todd Frazier - ok fine I'll skip this.
Sign Asdrubal Cabrera - He's fine! He'll get the job done hitting about average fielding about average and letting you worry about spending your money elsewhere, and he'll likely be had with something under 2/10 even in a market that will overheat for thirdbasemen. But he's a big step down. Big. If you make a move like this there better be a corresponding big move somewhere else.
Sign Maikel Franco or Starlin Casto - At 27 someone will take a chance on Franco who put together one half season a few years ago and since then has bounced between average, bad, and good. Not a great fielder he needs to hit to be productive, but he should be cheap. Casto is AsCab but younger and a little less talented. He's giving at 29 what AsCab is giving at 33. The benefit of signing him is he's less likely to feel the ravages of age. The downside is he's more likely to feel the ravages of not being as good. But he's ok in the field so that should stick. When the skills go, they go and no one can say if that's 28, 31, or 34. He'll likely get a better deal than AsCab because of the age so this is more a "let's not worry about this position for a while" move if the Nats make it. Both could end up with surprising performance from a young guy who then could slot in for a few years. But both could also end up with duds.
Trade for Kris Bryant - the word is out that the Cubs (and Red Sox for that matter) are eyeing their next rebuilds. Trying to shed some talent/salary now with guys they don't expect to keep going forward to set up for a quicker return to glory. For the Cubs that means Bryant is on the block. Once thought to be a star in the making (won a deserved MVP in 2016) he's lost a bit at the plate and on the field making him merely very good. He's got two more seasons before free agency and the Cubs see a guy they don't want to spend superstar money to keep around at ages 30-36 or so. The Nats could surely use him but do they have the pieces to get him? Normally you'd say no, but in this day and age Kieboom plus might actually do it.
Trade for Arenado - I mean possible but as of today the Rockies probably want a lot and want a team to take the whole salary so I don't see it happening. Note to Colorado management. If you are going to do something like sign theis Arneado deal it means going all in with money commitments for several years. Not a 2/3rds try for a couple of years. Maybe next time!
Trade for Andujar - depsite spending last year injured the Yankees 3rd baseman is only 25 and looked real good when healthy. But with Urshela deserving a starting gig and DJ LeMahieu (WHO THE NATS SHOULD HAVE SIGNED) being awesome in the field and a .300 hitter at heart there isn't a good place for him right now. But this is a non-starter for the Nats as the Yankees were talking about dealing him for talent NOW. For the Yankees now it's hard to see what that would be other than a big time pitchers (it would likely be a Happ/Andujar package) or a young cheap great reliever (you'd like not to pay everyone in the pen and have someone to turn to in a few years). The Nats aren't in the market to give up that.
What's do I see the Nats doing? I told you a few days ago. I see AsCab being back. Sorry. What's the best move now that Rendon is gone. It's hard to say give Donaldson four years but that fits in with the "now"ness of the Strasburg deal. In terms of pure value it would probably go - trade for Bryant if you can, sign Castro, then Donaldson. But these are all Plan Bs.
Anyway you slice is Rendon is gone and he took a piece of production with him that the Nats aren't getting back.
*Reside In Placentia
So Rendon is gone and as losing Rendon can go he went to probably the best place he could for the Nats. Out of the NL East, Out of the NL, Not on an AL team that seems to be an immediate playoff threat. Can't ask for more there.
Of course that is an ancillary benefit that tries to cover for the HUGE loss that losing Rendon is. Rendon has been a Top 5ish player in baseball over the past 3 years. There are precious few players that can replace that production. Donaldson and Bryant, two names being bandied about, are All-Star level talents and you'd still not expect them to do it. No, accept facts - the Nats AREN'T going to replace Rendon. They are only going to patch the hole as best they can.
What does that mean? We're not sure yet. Could mean laying out money or making a trade for the guys I just noted to cover 80% of what Rendon can do. Could mean putting that money elsewhere like in the pen. Let's see what the options are today
Sign Donaldson : Donaldson is a nice fielding consistent hitter who had some great years with the Blue Jays a few seasons ago, but seems to have aged out of it. He'll be 34 next year and likely will give you good production for a year or two, after that it becomes dicier. The problem is, as everyone's Rendon back-up plan, he has no incentive to take a deal that's 2 years with options. He is going to get 3 years guaranteed, maybe 4, and he's going to get paid. 3/75? 4/80? We'll see how this shakes out but he is not going to be a cheap fix for anyone and it's tough to see the Nats matching what will likely end up being an overpay by some one.
Sign Todd Frazier - ok fine I'll skip this.
Sign Asdrubal Cabrera - He's fine! He'll get the job done hitting about average fielding about average and letting you worry about spending your money elsewhere, and he'll likely be had with something under 2/10 even in a market that will overheat for thirdbasemen. But he's a big step down. Big. If you make a move like this there better be a corresponding big move somewhere else.
Sign Maikel Franco or Starlin Casto - At 27 someone will take a chance on Franco who put together one half season a few years ago and since then has bounced between average, bad, and good. Not a great fielder he needs to hit to be productive, but he should be cheap. Casto is AsCab but younger and a little less talented. He's giving at 29 what AsCab is giving at 33. The benefit of signing him is he's less likely to feel the ravages of age. The downside is he's more likely to feel the ravages of not being as good. But he's ok in the field so that should stick. When the skills go, they go and no one can say if that's 28, 31, or 34. He'll likely get a better deal than AsCab because of the age so this is more a "let's not worry about this position for a while" move if the Nats make it. Both could end up with surprising performance from a young guy who then could slot in for a few years. But both could also end up with duds.
Trade for Kris Bryant - the word is out that the Cubs (and Red Sox for that matter) are eyeing their next rebuilds. Trying to shed some talent/salary now with guys they don't expect to keep going forward to set up for a quicker return to glory. For the Cubs that means Bryant is on the block. Once thought to be a star in the making (won a deserved MVP in 2016) he's lost a bit at the plate and on the field making him merely very good. He's got two more seasons before free agency and the Cubs see a guy they don't want to spend superstar money to keep around at ages 30-36 or so. The Nats could surely use him but do they have the pieces to get him? Normally you'd say no, but in this day and age Kieboom plus might actually do it.
Trade for Arenado - I mean possible but as of today the Rockies probably want a lot and want a team to take the whole salary so I don't see it happening. Note to Colorado management. If you are going to do something like sign theis Arneado deal it means going all in with money commitments for several years. Not a 2/3rds try for a couple of years. Maybe next time!
Trade for Andujar - depsite spending last year injured the Yankees 3rd baseman is only 25 and looked real good when healthy. But with Urshela deserving a starting gig and DJ LeMahieu (WHO THE NATS SHOULD HAVE SIGNED) being awesome in the field and a .300 hitter at heart there isn't a good place for him right now. But this is a non-starter for the Nats as the Yankees were talking about dealing him for talent NOW. For the Yankees now it's hard to see what that would be other than a big time pitchers (it would likely be a Happ/Andujar package) or a young cheap great reliever (you'd like not to pay everyone in the pen and have someone to turn to in a few years). The Nats aren't in the market to give up that.
What's do I see the Nats doing? I told you a few days ago. I see AsCab being back. Sorry. What's the best move now that Rendon is gone. It's hard to say give Donaldson four years but that fits in with the "now"ness of the Strasburg deal. In terms of pure value it would probably go - trade for Bryant if you can, sign Castro, then Donaldson. But these are all Plan Bs.
Anyway you slice is Rendon is gone and he took a piece of production with him that the Nats aren't getting back.
*Reside In Placentia
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
The town that Strasmas didn't forget
You might not have heard but Strasburg signed back with the Nats. The deal is HUGE 7/245 (or 35 per). Let's understand now he almost certainly not be worth it. Yes I know, Scherzer was and I suppose the Nats could luck into what I consider the second best pitching FA contract of all-time* But let's look at the facts. He's one year older now than when Scherzer signed. He has far less history of pitching the amount of innings that Max had, and a far greater injury history. He pitched an amount of innings last year well off his usual pace
So Max : Going into his 30/31 season, just had 6 basically injury free years, where 195 was his personal low for a season (when you include post-season) and pitching as he always had
Stras : Going into his 31/32 season, just had his first injury free year since 2014, threw 245 innings 25% more than he has thrown in any season since 2014.
Oh yeah - and Strasburg is pitching off a Tommy John repaired arm.
So it's not going to be worth it in the straight sense, but who cares! Really baseball contracts are being worth it in a different way. Stras needs to give the Nats ace level pitching for 3-4 years and then can fade away slowly. Can he do that? It's not impossible. Max just did it for those ages. It IS unlikely but the only other option for the Nats was going after Cole and hoping to win a bidding war.
This deal keeps Stras on the team for his career. It keeps the Nats full of aces in 2020 to defend their title. It also puts a big ol $35 million toward the cap. If you are a "Nats are going to try to stay under the cap" type - this makes signing Rendon VERY unlikley. It would be nearly impossible to sign him and then anyone else good and fill out this roster. I suppose they could fill it with garbage back-ups and relievers and skip out on the 5th starter and hope Ross finally has gotten it. But more likely they let Rendon go and smartly fill out all those other spots.
Is there anything in the fancy stats to suggest Stras isn't going to be able to help next year, if healthy? Nope. In fact Stras has been remarkably consistent over the years. Maybe a little more homer prone while getting a few more ground balls, as contradictory as that may sound. But the trends are not huge. Strasburg started out as a K machine and then the Nats had an ill-fated attempt to make him an ultimate control pitcher (remember the "strikeouts are too many pitches" era?") but since then has been the same pitcher for years, which has produced consistent 2nd tier Cy Young performance, if not results. Last year kind of broke in a way to highlight that but it only got him the results he deserved not some fluke measure.
The worst thing that can happen to the Nats is an end to the starting pitching injury luck. It's now 2 TJ guys, one well into that second elbow and Max going on 36. But they need them all for pretty much 75-80 starts. There's not much you can do though. The Nats days of relying on young arms are over and relying on older ones is risky, but in this case necessary.
My take is this - if you were going to let Rendon walk or were afraid he was going, you had to bring back Strasburg (or sign a Cole). It wasn't going to get you a team friendly deal but this is about staying where the Nats are at his moment, with Max still presumably Max and Soto a burgeoning superstar. Ideally something else will work out - it has in the past. A pitcher will develop (like.... uhhhh) or a hitter ( Kieboom or Garcia seem like the most likely ones) to give the Nats another cheap option to keep costs down when they do go out and sign what they need. If that doesn't happen in 2020 or 2021... well then we start looking at the Nats likely rebuilding post-under control Soto (maybe with him, don't worry) but for the next couple of years they should remain in the mix and could be favorites depending on how they spend.
*Behind Randy Johnson's 4yr, 4 Cy Young, WS contract
So Max : Going into his 30/31 season, just had 6 basically injury free years, where 195 was his personal low for a season (when you include post-season) and pitching as he always had
Stras : Going into his 31/32 season, just had his first injury free year since 2014, threw 245 innings 25% more than he has thrown in any season since 2014.
Oh yeah - and Strasburg is pitching off a Tommy John repaired arm.
So it's not going to be worth it in the straight sense, but who cares! Really baseball contracts are being worth it in a different way. Stras needs to give the Nats ace level pitching for 3-4 years and then can fade away slowly. Can he do that? It's not impossible. Max just did it for those ages. It IS unlikely but the only other option for the Nats was going after Cole and hoping to win a bidding war.
This deal keeps Stras on the team for his career. It keeps the Nats full of aces in 2020 to defend their title. It also puts a big ol $35 million toward the cap. If you are a "Nats are going to try to stay under the cap" type - this makes signing Rendon VERY unlikley. It would be nearly impossible to sign him and then anyone else good and fill out this roster. I suppose they could fill it with garbage back-ups and relievers and skip out on the 5th starter and hope Ross finally has gotten it. But more likely they let Rendon go and smartly fill out all those other spots.
Is there anything in the fancy stats to suggest Stras isn't going to be able to help next year, if healthy? Nope. In fact Stras has been remarkably consistent over the years. Maybe a little more homer prone while getting a few more ground balls, as contradictory as that may sound. But the trends are not huge. Strasburg started out as a K machine and then the Nats had an ill-fated attempt to make him an ultimate control pitcher (remember the "strikeouts are too many pitches" era?") but since then has been the same pitcher for years, which has produced consistent 2nd tier Cy Young performance, if not results. Last year kind of broke in a way to highlight that but it only got him the results he deserved not some fluke measure.
The worst thing that can happen to the Nats is an end to the starting pitching injury luck. It's now 2 TJ guys, one well into that second elbow and Max going on 36. But they need them all for pretty much 75-80 starts. There's not much you can do though. The Nats days of relying on young arms are over and relying on older ones is risky, but in this case necessary.
My take is this - if you were going to let Rendon walk or were afraid he was going, you had to bring back Strasburg (or sign a Cole). It wasn't going to get you a team friendly deal but this is about staying where the Nats are at his moment, with Max still presumably Max and Soto a burgeoning superstar. Ideally something else will work out - it has in the past. A pitcher will develop (like.... uhhhh) or a hitter ( Kieboom or Garcia seem like the most likely ones) to give the Nats another cheap option to keep costs down when they do go out and sign what they need. If that doesn't happen in 2020 or 2021... well then we start looking at the Nats likely rebuilding post-under control Soto (maybe with him, don't worry) but for the next couple of years they should remain in the mix and could be favorites depending on how they spend.
*Behind Randy Johnson's 4yr, 4 Cy Young, WS contract
Friday, December 06, 2019
Fast (Strasburg), Easy (Rendon) or Cheap (Neither) I can get you any two... but not Fast and Easy
Hey, Howie's probably back. That's good!
Lerner opened his big trap yesterday and said things.
He's almost certainly spinning this. They almost certainly can afford this. They have billions, just made a ton more money with the deep playoff run and championship (which will continue to pay off in merchandise and ticket sales in 2020), and stand to have another windfall from the MASN deal at some point now sooner than later.
But let's be honest, this is just how owners talk. It's like telling your kids in the store you can't afford to buy each their own ice cream. You totally can - but you have a budget in your mind for desserts and that doesn't include a tub of Haagen-Dazs for Tommy, a box of Magnum ice cream bars for sister Sue, and few artisan pastries for your Mommy. They have a budget in mind for the team and that doesn't include spending a ton on both Rendon and Strasburg. That's what he's really saying.
How is that possible you might ask? We do (supposedly) know that the Nats put a 7/210 offer on the table for Rendon when Strasburg still hadn't agreed to an opt out. If they could have afforded it then, why not now? Well I have three theories which I'll give you from least likely to most.
Theory 1 : The long term plan.
In this theory the Nats had a plan on what they wanted to do 5 years down the road. Maybe it was a plan where they built another Top 5-10 payroll team around a ridiculous Juan Soto contract. Maybe it was an eventual slow tear down to rebuild. We don't know but we can assume whatever they offered Rendon, they saw how this fit into that plan and five years would be post Strasburg's initial contract so that wasn't factored in. But now they are looking to re-up Strasburg for a bunch of years AND Rendon for a bunch of years, and doing both would disrupt whatever that fiscal plan was.
Why do I consider this least likely? Well it's pretty dumb in baseball to count on anything five years down the road. Too much variability. You can certainly tear down and say "we hope to be better by then" but neither of these plans were than. A slow teardown also doesn't really fit with re-signing Rendon.
Theory 2 : Got the title, now let's tighten ranks
The Lerners are by nature not big spenders. You can read any article about the organization, including some early Nats ones, and see that. However they maintained, once the Nats became competitive, a healthy payroll. Sure they could have splurged a little more, but they have been Top 5ish and the yells from the cheap seats (which I was sitting in) of "CHEEEEEEEEEEEP" have gone by the wayside. However, what if those payrolls were driven by one single desire? What if ultimately money kept flowing out because Uncle Ted desperately wanted to have a winner before he passed? If that's the case than when the Nats got that final out of the series that also marked the final out of top tier payrolls. The Nats could now pare down to a number they were more comfortable with which is... well we don't know really? We know what it is when they are bad (pay nothing), but not when they are still able to compete
I consider this possible, but I like my other theory better
Theory 1 : The contract puzzle pieces fit
We know that contract was 7/210. What we don't know is how it was structured. We have seen in the past the Nats do funny things with contract to make the money flow be how they want it to be. So it's easy to imagine that the Nats planned for a 2020 where they had planned to pay out Strasburg 25 million a 2021 where he would make 15 and a 2022 where he would make 15 and worked Rendon's contract around that. Maybe it started with 20 million, then 35 million a piece in the next two years. Whatever it was, it worked for the Nats. But Rendon rejected that, preferring the more lucrative money in hand. And Strasburg opting out might mean the same payroll numbers won't be seen in those year. It certainly means the luxury tax number will go up as his average AAV jumps.
So for the Nats they are faced with a very real possibility of 60+ million to the luxury tax with only about 70 million currently free and several rosters spots after that to fill. Signing both would mean pushing the deferred money on smaller deals, which is harder to do, or accepting going over the tax. Also hitting some number in payroll likely higher than the pictured.
It matters which theory because that will effect how the Nats move in the next couple of years. If it's #2 we should see a sharp reduction in salary. If it's #1 we should see maintenance but that has been done through some financial movement they may not be able to do with every free agent. If it's #1 who knows? Regardless the point is something fans pretty much understood would be true - the Nats weren't bringing back both stars - is now closer to reality and for a reason Nats fans didn't want to hear. It's not because of crazy outbidding by more desperate teams, but at least in part because the team itself reached whatever self-imposed limit it set. The contracts they end up with may be perfectly reasonable high-end market deals, maybe not even high-end, but the Nats would still be out because they set their overall number. A few weeks after the incredible high of winning it all, this marks a bad start to the post-Championship era.
Lerner opened his big trap yesterday and said things.
He's almost certainly spinning this. They almost certainly can afford this. They have billions, just made a ton more money with the deep playoff run and championship (which will continue to pay off in merchandise and ticket sales in 2020), and stand to have another windfall from the MASN deal at some point now sooner than later.
But let's be honest, this is just how owners talk. It's like telling your kids in the store you can't afford to buy each their own ice cream. You totally can - but you have a budget in your mind for desserts and that doesn't include a tub of Haagen-Dazs for Tommy, a box of Magnum ice cream bars for sister Sue, and few artisan pastries for your Mommy. They have a budget in mind for the team and that doesn't include spending a ton on both Rendon and Strasburg. That's what he's really saying.
How is that possible you might ask? We do (supposedly) know that the Nats put a 7/210 offer on the table for Rendon when Strasburg still hadn't agreed to an opt out. If they could have afforded it then, why not now? Well I have three theories which I'll give you from least likely to most.
Theory 1 : The long term plan.
In this theory the Nats had a plan on what they wanted to do 5 years down the road. Maybe it was a plan where they built another Top 5-10 payroll team around a ridiculous Juan Soto contract. Maybe it was an eventual slow tear down to rebuild. We don't know but we can assume whatever they offered Rendon, they saw how this fit into that plan and five years would be post Strasburg's initial contract so that wasn't factored in. But now they are looking to re-up Strasburg for a bunch of years AND Rendon for a bunch of years, and doing both would disrupt whatever that fiscal plan was.
Why do I consider this least likely? Well it's pretty dumb in baseball to count on anything five years down the road. Too much variability. You can certainly tear down and say "we hope to be better by then" but neither of these plans were than. A slow teardown also doesn't really fit with re-signing Rendon.
Theory 2 : Got the title, now let's tighten ranks
The Lerners are by nature not big spenders. You can read any article about the organization, including some early Nats ones, and see that. However they maintained, once the Nats became competitive, a healthy payroll. Sure they could have splurged a little more, but they have been Top 5ish and the yells from the cheap seats (which I was sitting in) of "CHEEEEEEEEEEEP" have gone by the wayside. However, what if those payrolls were driven by one single desire? What if ultimately money kept flowing out because Uncle Ted desperately wanted to have a winner before he passed? If that's the case than when the Nats got that final out of the series that also marked the final out of top tier payrolls. The Nats could now pare down to a number they were more comfortable with which is... well we don't know really? We know what it is when they are bad (pay nothing), but not when they are still able to compete
I consider this possible, but I like my other theory better
Theory 1 : The contract puzzle pieces fit
We know that contract was 7/210. What we don't know is how it was structured. We have seen in the past the Nats do funny things with contract to make the money flow be how they want it to be. So it's easy to imagine that the Nats planned for a 2020 where they had planned to pay out Strasburg 25 million a 2021 where he would make 15 and a 2022 where he would make 15 and worked Rendon's contract around that. Maybe it started with 20 million, then 35 million a piece in the next two years. Whatever it was, it worked for the Nats. But Rendon rejected that, preferring the more lucrative money in hand. And Strasburg opting out might mean the same payroll numbers won't be seen in those year. It certainly means the luxury tax number will go up as his average AAV jumps.
So for the Nats they are faced with a very real possibility of 60+ million to the luxury tax with only about 70 million currently free and several rosters spots after that to fill. Signing both would mean pushing the deferred money on smaller deals, which is harder to do, or accepting going over the tax. Also hitting some number in payroll likely higher than the pictured.
It matters which theory because that will effect how the Nats move in the next couple of years. If it's #2 we should see a sharp reduction in salary. If it's #1 we should see maintenance but that has been done through some financial movement they may not be able to do with every free agent. If it's #1 who knows? Regardless the point is something fans pretty much understood would be true - the Nats weren't bringing back both stars - is now closer to reality and for a reason Nats fans didn't want to hear. It's not because of crazy outbidding by more desperate teams, but at least in part because the team itself reached whatever self-imposed limit it set. The contracts they end up with may be perfectly reasonable high-end market deals, maybe not even high-end, but the Nats would still be out because they set their overall number. A few weeks after the incredible high of winning it all, this marks a bad start to the post-Championship era.
Thursday, December 05, 2019
Offseason Position Discussion : Catcher
Last year discussion revisited
I assumed last year that the Nats would bring in someone to start (via trade or FA) and the rest of the schlubs would fight for a back-up role. Ideally that meant Grandal or Realmuto but there were a couple riskier options for a full-time role (like Ramos) out there as well. Given that I thought they'd punt on catcher until late, I suggested getting two vets to man the position and platoon. Which is what the Nats did! Not the two I suggested (McCann and Lucroy) but instead Suzuki and Gomes came in.
How'd they do? ehhh. Suzuki was supposed to be the hit no-field guy and while he didn't field (don't ask him to throw anyone out) as "planned" he didn't hit as well as they hoped. It was still good enough given the low bar catcher is set at but they were certainly hoping for more. Gomes was worse. Brought in with an eye toward being a long-term solution, Gomes reverted from a maybe average bat (for a catcher) to a terrible one. As the field first guy he didn't come through there - at least not as the Nats would have liked. He didn't frame as well and had a career high in passed balls (but objectively was still pretty good).
All in all catching was a small problem for the Nats but in the scheme of things it's a problem for most teams right now and with no cheap and easy solutions mid-season the Nats just let things go and hoped it wouldn't end up mattering. And it didn't!
Presumed Plan : Suzuki and Gomes redux
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Suzuki is signed, is well liked in the clubhouse and for a catcher still hits well. There could be a wall coming he's going to hit but there's no reason not to try it again. Gomes was released and then resigned for slightly less money. The pieces are there. They are going to use them.
Problems with Presumed Plan : This plan is nothing but problems. Suzuki hits well for a catcher but is almost to the point he shouldn't be playing catcher anymore. They can probably fudge it for another year but any further drop in hitting and it gets real questionable what you are even doing with Kurt. Gomes was nearly unplayably bad at the plate last year and showed some drop behind the plate. If that drop continues it gets even more questionable what... well you get the point.
My take : Oooh I don't like this. Gomes has pretty much solidified himself as a terrible hitter, though some may cling to one hot month to finish the year. I go with the deep history of not hitting and think it'll happen again. I think he'll field well again (I think the PB high was in part dealing with a whole new set of pitchers, and mainly one in Corbin, who depends on throwing sweeping sliders) so I can see bringing him back but 5 million is too rich for my blood, 2 years is a year too long, and as a quasi-platoon instead of a back-up I'm not thrilled with.
I'm low on Suzuki for next year mainly because of his age and the lack of improvements seen the last few year despite the fairly light workload. This is a guy aging into a back-up role and will probably suffer next year even in a platoon. The question is whether it's mild - in which he'll still be better than the average catcher and the Nats will luck out with one more useful year in that role, or if it's major and the Nats have a huge problem.
But the Nats have done what they have done. This is settled and there isn't any reason to discuss alternatives.
Out of the box suggestion :
There isn't a good one right now given the Nats situation. They'd have to package one of these guys out the door and they aren't going to get back much if anything. But if I gotta come up with something.
You trade Suzuki and Gomes out to whoever wants them for catching prospects. The key here is you aren't looking for good ones necessarily. Trade Suzuki to the Rangers for Randy Florentino (their #25 guy). Gomes to the Angels for whoever qualifies as their best (not even in Top 30). The goal is to get quantity here and try to strike gold. Catching is a spot where bad play is accepted. Grab a Josh Phlegly for a million and Kevin Plawecki for a million and hope you get lucky at the majors while you hope your "flood the minors with crap" plan reveals a gem accidentally flushed down the toilet. You won a series with bad catching. You aren't going to get good catching. Why not try to maybe get lucky for the future.
I assumed last year that the Nats would bring in someone to start (via trade or FA) and the rest of the schlubs would fight for a back-up role. Ideally that meant Grandal or Realmuto but there were a couple riskier options for a full-time role (like Ramos) out there as well. Given that I thought they'd punt on catcher until late, I suggested getting two vets to man the position and platoon. Which is what the Nats did! Not the two I suggested (McCann and Lucroy) but instead Suzuki and Gomes came in.
How'd they do? ehhh. Suzuki was supposed to be the hit no-field guy and while he didn't field (don't ask him to throw anyone out) as "planned" he didn't hit as well as they hoped. It was still good enough given the low bar catcher is set at but they were certainly hoping for more. Gomes was worse. Brought in with an eye toward being a long-term solution, Gomes reverted from a maybe average bat (for a catcher) to a terrible one. As the field first guy he didn't come through there - at least not as the Nats would have liked. He didn't frame as well and had a career high in passed balls (but objectively was still pretty good).
All in all catching was a small problem for the Nats but in the scheme of things it's a problem for most teams right now and with no cheap and easy solutions mid-season the Nats just let things go and hoped it wouldn't end up mattering. And it didn't!
Presumed Plan : Suzuki and Gomes redux
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Suzuki is signed, is well liked in the clubhouse and for a catcher still hits well. There could be a wall coming he's going to hit but there's no reason not to try it again. Gomes was released and then resigned for slightly less money. The pieces are there. They are going to use them.
Problems with Presumed Plan : This plan is nothing but problems. Suzuki hits well for a catcher but is almost to the point he shouldn't be playing catcher anymore. They can probably fudge it for another year but any further drop in hitting and it gets real questionable what you are even doing with Kurt. Gomes was nearly unplayably bad at the plate last year and showed some drop behind the plate. If that drop continues it gets even more questionable what... well you get the point.
My take : Oooh I don't like this. Gomes has pretty much solidified himself as a terrible hitter, though some may cling to one hot month to finish the year. I go with the deep history of not hitting and think it'll happen again. I think he'll field well again (I think the PB high was in part dealing with a whole new set of pitchers, and mainly one in Corbin, who depends on throwing sweeping sliders) so I can see bringing him back but 5 million is too rich for my blood, 2 years is a year too long, and as a quasi-platoon instead of a back-up I'm not thrilled with.
I'm low on Suzuki for next year mainly because of his age and the lack of improvements seen the last few year despite the fairly light workload. This is a guy aging into a back-up role and will probably suffer next year even in a platoon. The question is whether it's mild - in which he'll still be better than the average catcher and the Nats will luck out with one more useful year in that role, or if it's major and the Nats have a huge problem.
But the Nats have done what they have done. This is settled and there isn't any reason to discuss alternatives.
Out of the box suggestion :
There isn't a good one right now given the Nats situation. They'd have to package one of these guys out the door and they aren't going to get back much if anything. But if I gotta come up with something.
You trade Suzuki and Gomes out to whoever wants them for catching prospects. The key here is you aren't looking for good ones necessarily. Trade Suzuki to the Rangers for Randy Florentino (their #25 guy). Gomes to the Angels for whoever qualifies as their best (not even in Top 30). The goal is to get quantity here and try to strike gold. Catching is a spot where bad play is accepted. Grab a Josh Phlegly for a million and Kevin Plawecki for a million and hope you get lucky at the majors while you hope your "flood the minors with crap" plan reveals a gem accidentally flushed down the toilet. You won a series with bad catching. You aren't going to get good catching. Why not try to maybe get lucky for the future.
Tuesday, December 03, 2019
Offseason Position Discussion : Third Base
Last year's discussion revisited.
We assumed Rendon would start and play again. I didn't even really consider injuries a concern - pegging Rendon at 130-140 games played at least, making his back-up only matter if the Nats didn't fix other issues. They did so it didn't matter that they just had a piecemeal plan for him. More importantly he missed less time than expected and played 146 games. When Rendon is healthy he is an MVP candidate and he put up a .319 / .412 / .598 line with excellent defense that got him 3rd in the voting.
The big issue of the season at third was the lack of extension / new contract for Rendon. Last year at this time we made the assumption that while the Nats could bring back Rendon AND Bryce it was more likely they would sign a pitcher and bring back one of the two. They signed that pitcher (Corbin) and let Bryce walk, which should have made Rendon re-signing a formality. But instead here we are, heading into the Winter Meetings with stories like this hanging over the team. Adding to the troubles is Strasburg opting out after an excellent year, meaning the Nats have to work two big contracts in the same off-season. Affording it shouldn't be an issue but signing both to big time deals would likely hamstring all other improvements (assuming you buy into the budget constraints of teams)
Presumed Plan :You are making me guess here so I'd say - Rendon walks. Asdrubal Cabrera is brought back as 2B/3B coverage and him and Kieboom spend at least the first few months splitting time and positions.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : If the Nats wanted Rendon to come back he'd be back. The numbers are pretty clear on what he wants which is "at least Arenado money" which is 8/260 or 32.5 per. The Nats seemingly offered him 7/210 or 30 per with some heavy deferments, which Rendon also seems uninterested in. There seems to be some thought he would accept a shorter deal for more money (say 5/200) but I don't know how much of that is speculation.
Anyway the way I see it is that the Nats offer wouldn't be out there unless it was basically their best and final, much like the Bryce deal was last year. Here's a public accounting of what we offered (without too many specifics that may make it look worse) - if he doesn't want it, we tried. He doesn't want it, so he's gone.
So why AsCab instead of a real FA like Donaldson? I think the Nats would like to see if Kieboom has flexibility to take 3B so if Garcia develops he can take 2B. I also think the Nats would be more likely to spend money elsewhere (hey Cole!) or not at all (maybe wrap up Soto for a few more years?) then to put a ton of money into a one year guy. They haven't really done that.
Problems with Presumed Plan : I mean if you want to win, this makes winning a lot harder. Rendon was one of the best players in baseball last year and you don't just replace him. And if you don't even try to replace him - well the drop off will be harsh. The Nats line-up isn't particularly deep and instead relied on a couple of table setters, two stars, and Howie backing them up to work. It currently sits without Howie and a star meaning real trouble on the horizon. Also let's not dismiss the loss of Rendon's D. He's been a great 3B and none of the guys I've mentioned as replacements would replace that either.
If the Nats go full pitching as I've suggested here that they might for a while now. That might be enough to get them back to the playoffs like a Giants team in the early 2010s, but it won't win the division, and given the Nats don't seem likely to fix the pen that plan has even more risk. One injury from one of these pitchers - and we're assuming Max, Stras, Corbin, Cole here all worked VERY hard over the past year - and it falls apart.
My take : RE-SIGN RENDON YOU FOOLS! The Nats have drafted 3 HoF level talents in Stras, Bryce, and Rendon. They are in danger of losing all three in the matter of 2 off-seasons. That's crazy.
Bryce is gone so there's no fixing that, but there's still time to bring back the other two. Hitting seems more reliable that pitching. Rendon is a full 2 years younger than Strasburg. Rendon has produced more for the Nationals. These facts would making Rendon the option if you had to choose one (but you don't). What's working in Stras' favor is the complete lack of development of new starting pitching prospects. But still I give the edge to signing Rendon. But really sign both.
It's not difficult. You have an MVP-type who you know, who you trust, who the fans love, who is here now. Sign him.
Out of the box suggestion :
The Nats are out of boxing this themselves aren't they? Can Lindor play 3B?
Kyle Seager is a great defensive third baseman who the ever rebuilding Mariners don't need. They probably want more than the Nats can offer, but what you want and what you can get are two different things. The ownership wants to be cheap if they aren't being good. Seager is 32 and coming off a major injury that makes him a risk even with 2/3rds a season behind him. The return is probably going to be lower now than it will be if he starts the season well. So strike now and start playing the "how long can we keep this going game" that's predicated on Max's age and the older pitching staff's health. Plan in two year bursts. Seager would fit those plans and might not cost you all that much.
We assumed Rendon would start and play again. I didn't even really consider injuries a concern - pegging Rendon at 130-140 games played at least, making his back-up only matter if the Nats didn't fix other issues. They did so it didn't matter that they just had a piecemeal plan for him. More importantly he missed less time than expected and played 146 games. When Rendon is healthy he is an MVP candidate and he put up a .319 / .412 / .598 line with excellent defense that got him 3rd in the voting.
The big issue of the season at third was the lack of extension / new contract for Rendon. Last year at this time we made the assumption that while the Nats could bring back Rendon AND Bryce it was more likely they would sign a pitcher and bring back one of the two. They signed that pitcher (Corbin) and let Bryce walk, which should have made Rendon re-signing a formality. But instead here we are, heading into the Winter Meetings with stories like this hanging over the team. Adding to the troubles is Strasburg opting out after an excellent year, meaning the Nats have to work two big contracts in the same off-season. Affording it shouldn't be an issue but signing both to big time deals would likely hamstring all other improvements (assuming you buy into the budget constraints of teams)
Presumed Plan :You are making me guess here so I'd say - Rendon walks. Asdrubal Cabrera is brought back as 2B/3B coverage and him and Kieboom spend at least the first few months splitting time and positions.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : If the Nats wanted Rendon to come back he'd be back. The numbers are pretty clear on what he wants which is "at least Arenado money" which is 8/260 or 32.5 per. The Nats seemingly offered him 7/210 or 30 per with some heavy deferments, which Rendon also seems uninterested in. There seems to be some thought he would accept a shorter deal for more money (say 5/200) but I don't know how much of that is speculation.
Anyway the way I see it is that the Nats offer wouldn't be out there unless it was basically their best and final, much like the Bryce deal was last year. Here's a public accounting of what we offered (without too many specifics that may make it look worse) - if he doesn't want it, we tried. He doesn't want it, so he's gone.
So why AsCab instead of a real FA like Donaldson? I think the Nats would like to see if Kieboom has flexibility to take 3B so if Garcia develops he can take 2B. I also think the Nats would be more likely to spend money elsewhere (hey Cole!) or not at all (maybe wrap up Soto for a few more years?) then to put a ton of money into a one year guy. They haven't really done that.
Problems with Presumed Plan : I mean if you want to win, this makes winning a lot harder. Rendon was one of the best players in baseball last year and you don't just replace him. And if you don't even try to replace him - well the drop off will be harsh. The Nats line-up isn't particularly deep and instead relied on a couple of table setters, two stars, and Howie backing them up to work. It currently sits without Howie and a star meaning real trouble on the horizon. Also let's not dismiss the loss of Rendon's D. He's been a great 3B and none of the guys I've mentioned as replacements would replace that either.
If the Nats go full pitching as I've suggested here that they might for a while now. That might be enough to get them back to the playoffs like a Giants team in the early 2010s, but it won't win the division, and given the Nats don't seem likely to fix the pen that plan has even more risk. One injury from one of these pitchers - and we're assuming Max, Stras, Corbin, Cole here all worked VERY hard over the past year - and it falls apart.
My take : RE-SIGN RENDON YOU FOOLS! The Nats have drafted 3 HoF level talents in Stras, Bryce, and Rendon. They are in danger of losing all three in the matter of 2 off-seasons. That's crazy.
Bryce is gone so there's no fixing that, but there's still time to bring back the other two. Hitting seems more reliable that pitching. Rendon is a full 2 years younger than Strasburg. Rendon has produced more for the Nationals. These facts would making Rendon the option if you had to choose one (but you don't). What's working in Stras' favor is the complete lack of development of new starting pitching prospects. But still I give the edge to signing Rendon. But really sign both.
It's not difficult. You have an MVP-type who you know, who you trust, who the fans love, who is here now. Sign him.
Out of the box suggestion :
The Nats are out of boxing this themselves aren't they? Can Lindor play 3B?
Kyle Seager is a great defensive third baseman who the ever rebuilding Mariners don't need. They probably want more than the Nats can offer, but what you want and what you can get are two different things. The ownership wants to be cheap if they aren't being good. Seager is 32 and coming off a major injury that makes him a risk even with 2/3rds a season behind him. The return is probably going to be lower now than it will be if he starts the season well. So strike now and start playing the "how long can we keep this going game" that's predicated on Max's age and the older pitching staff's health. Plan in two year bursts. Seager would fit those plans and might not cost you all that much.
Monday, December 02, 2019
Monday Quickie - nothing happened
I guess Difo signed but if you can't read between the lines it's not an assurance he's coming back. It's an assurance IF he comes back he will get paid a million (and if he doesn't he'll get a nice couple hundred grand as a going away present). Why keep him around? He fits a spot - which is closest in the system to major leagues without being an actual prospect who's playing time you are concerned about that you can slot somewhere then jettison if necessary with little thought. If he's the main middle infield back-up that's an issue but if he's man 26 so be it.
Drew Pomeranz went off to San Diego to pitch crossing another reliever off the Nats' fans wish list. It looks very much like the Nats are fine passing relievers again, despite the spotty history with that working out.
What's going on in the waiting game? Rosenthal hinted that Rendon's offer had some heavy deferments and that Rendon wasn't interested. As for Strrasburg its been quiet but the Winter Meetings are in his back yard of San Diego this year so expect him to meet with teams if a contract isn't signed by then. And if a contract isn't signed by then, I'd be a bit worried.
It's a quickie! For reals this time
Drew Pomeranz went off to San Diego to pitch crossing another reliever off the Nats' fans wish list. It looks very much like the Nats are fine passing relievers again, despite the spotty history with that working out.
What's going on in the waiting game? Rosenthal hinted that Rendon's offer had some heavy deferments and that Rendon wasn't interested. As for Strrasburg its been quiet but the Winter Meetings are in his back yard of San Diego this year so expect him to meet with teams if a contract isn't signed by then. And if a contract isn't signed by then, I'd be a bit worried.
It's a quickie! For reals this time
Monday, November 25, 2019
Monday Quickie - Braves reload as the Nats wait
It is forgotten in the euphoria of the World Series win but the Nats didn't win the division last year. The Braves did. And while the Nats are presumably held back awaiting the decisions of Strasburg and Rendon the Braves are forging forward.
They have re-signed Tyler Flowers. He had an unusually good fits couple of years in ATL but has been his general poor hitting self the last couple of years. To cover for him they brought in the perfectly acceptable Travis d'Arnaud who was average last year and a few years younger. It's a mediocre catching duo at the plate and behind it but catcher is a hard spot to fill. This fills it I guess. It wasn't good last year with the aged McCann getting time. It probably won't be good in 2020. But it also probably won't be worse.
They resigned Nick Markakis, continuing my favorite non Yankees, non Nats subplot - the Marchkakis to 3000 hits. For those unfamiliar, by virtue of rarely missing games, hitting at the top of line-ups, and being a decent average hitter, Nick currently sits at 2355 hits. That's still a good 5 seasons away from 3000 and at 35 he probably won't get there, but a couple flukes in 2020 and 2021 getting to 2700 hits and there will be some interest in grabbing him - first off he would have hit well and second only 300 hits away. Anyway for the Braves he's a pretty solid 3rd/4th OF type which keeps ATL having the flexibility to work in prospects as needed and deal with injuries.
Most importantly they signed Darren O'Day, Chris Martin, and Will Smith for the pen. Smith is the prime get. He's spent four of the past 5 seasons as a top notch reliever. He had been a little wild but in the past 2 years has calmed that down. If he can avoid fluky homer issues, he's lockdown and he's killer on lefties, which is important to have in a division with the likes of Soto, Bryce, Conforto and McNeill. O'Day got hurt last year but is worth a flier on for the couple million they are spending seeing how he's been good for a decade when healthy. Martin is a guy who has developed pinpoint control and has strikeout stuff. He gave up longballs in Texas, but if that was just Texas the Braves, who are keeping him after acquiring him mid season last year, are getting a guy who could be elite.
The Braves are still in an iffy position because of the rotation. They've finally given up on the former ace Teheran and Keuchel is out, meaning they need two arms. If they succeed in getting Cole, or piecing together two strong alternatives (Bumgarner and Hamels?) they may be early NL favorites.
The Nats are stuc, unfortunately. They proved they can get over a guy like Bryce in an off-season. So if Rendon or Strasburg leaves they can figure out the plan around that. With Bryce because it was just him, they were able to say at a point - we're moving on - and do it. But with Stras and Rendon both sitting out there they can't do that in the same way. They have to make a choice on which one they want and throw money at that guy, then see what happens. But of course if you are the guy they are throwing money at you know you have the Nats in a good position and can work them for more. That drags things out and the longer it goes on the worse for the Nats. If they are really going to play this game and NOT commit to giving one of these two basically what they want no questions asked but instead try their usual working of a fair deal, then they need to hope one gets off the market soon, or else they could watch the B and C plans go away waiting on which A plan they settle on.
(Or as always - not my money, give them both what they want)
They have re-signed Tyler Flowers. He had an unusually good fits couple of years in ATL but has been his general poor hitting self the last couple of years. To cover for him they brought in the perfectly acceptable Travis d'Arnaud who was average last year and a few years younger. It's a mediocre catching duo at the plate and behind it but catcher is a hard spot to fill. This fills it I guess. It wasn't good last year with the aged McCann getting time. It probably won't be good in 2020. But it also probably won't be worse.
They resigned Nick Markakis, continuing my favorite non Yankees, non Nats subplot - the Marchkakis to 3000 hits. For those unfamiliar, by virtue of rarely missing games, hitting at the top of line-ups, and being a decent average hitter, Nick currently sits at 2355 hits. That's still a good 5 seasons away from 3000 and at 35 he probably won't get there, but a couple flukes in 2020 and 2021 getting to 2700 hits and there will be some interest in grabbing him - first off he would have hit well and second only 300 hits away. Anyway for the Braves he's a pretty solid 3rd/4th OF type which keeps ATL having the flexibility to work in prospects as needed and deal with injuries.
Most importantly they signed Darren O'Day, Chris Martin, and Will Smith for the pen. Smith is the prime get. He's spent four of the past 5 seasons as a top notch reliever. He had been a little wild but in the past 2 years has calmed that down. If he can avoid fluky homer issues, he's lockdown and he's killer on lefties, which is important to have in a division with the likes of Soto, Bryce, Conforto and McNeill. O'Day got hurt last year but is worth a flier on for the couple million they are spending seeing how he's been good for a decade when healthy. Martin is a guy who has developed pinpoint control and has strikeout stuff. He gave up longballs in Texas, but if that was just Texas the Braves, who are keeping him after acquiring him mid season last year, are getting a guy who could be elite.
The Braves are still in an iffy position because of the rotation. They've finally given up on the former ace Teheran and Keuchel is out, meaning they need two arms. If they succeed in getting Cole, or piecing together two strong alternatives (Bumgarner and Hamels?) they may be early NL favorites.
The Nats are stuc, unfortunately. They proved they can get over a guy like Bryce in an off-season. So if Rendon or Strasburg leaves they can figure out the plan around that. With Bryce because it was just him, they were able to say at a point - we're moving on - and do it. But with Stras and Rendon both sitting out there they can't do that in the same way. They have to make a choice on which one they want and throw money at that guy, then see what happens. But of course if you are the guy they are throwing money at you know you have the Nats in a good position and can work them for more. That drags things out and the longer it goes on the worse for the Nats. If they are really going to play this game and NOT commit to giving one of these two basically what they want no questions asked but instead try their usual working of a fair deal, then they need to hope one gets off the market soon, or else they could watch the B and C plans go away waiting on which A plan they settle on.
(Or as always - not my money, give them both what they want)
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Offseason Position Discussion : Shortstop
Ok, ok. I'll stop saying the Nats should get Frazier. Geez. Replace all that with Thames I guess.
Last year discussion revisited
We expected and got Trea all day. There was a little worry after 2018 that Trea could be an average hitter and an average hitter can put up a below average year but even then he'd be cheap, he can field, and he can run. He's a starter. The good news is that he didn't have a below average year, he went in the other direction. Like everyone he hit more homers, but also walked less and struck out more. Defensively the one season "THE BEST" that I warned you not to pay much attention to, revert back to the usual "He's fine" level. All in all a very positive player considering position and cost. There's probably good reason to think he won't be a star and the half-season we saw in 2016 was the best he can be but that's not really worrying.
What is worrying is we saw when he's hurt the Nats don't have a good plan. Difo started a lot when Turner was out early and he was so bad they went with not carrying a back-up SS for a good portion of the time when Turner was healthy. Kieboom spent the other time there and he wasn't good and is wanted to play 2B.
Presumed Plan : Turner plays short. A FA shortstop is on the roster to back him up.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan :I hope I don't have to explain why Trea should start. If you rank SSs he doesn't look that great. Middle of the road in the field, lower Top 10 in hitting. But SS is deep right now and Trea is a very positive player in this very competitive position. Depending on how you put things I can see him as your #3 SS in the majors or the #8 but anyway you slice it he starts.
But last year he again missed major time. The Nats did not have a good plan in place for this and suffered for it. That's why I think they take the time to bring someone in. I think, in line with yesterday's plan this guy will also cover back-up 2B for Kieboom and free them up to spend money on other back-ups, positions, and the pen.
Problems with Presumed Plan :The big issue is the SS field is not deep. There are four FA SS and while they are all decent choices, they are likely to be grabbed up pretty quick. I think everyone's thinking is the same here. Watch Didi sign somewhere to start, try to catch the slick fielding Iglesias as a back-up. A lot of teams are going to be disappointed because Iglesias can't play for 10 teams. After that there will be a scramble for Jordy Mercer (eh) and Hechavarria (eh) and then... nothing. If the Nats don't act quick they can supplement from the deep 2B FA class but the fielding will suffer
So act fast or suffer when Trea gets hurt and Trea will likely get hurt at some point given his history
My take : The Nats are dumb if they don't do a better job backing up Trea. History tells us that. Should they bother to act fast and overpay? I don't know. Depends on what their overall strategy is here. It doesn't look like they are acting fast on the pen and its quite possible having both Rendon and Strasburg in discussions has slowed everything else down. So I'm worried it'll be Difo again. Better than that would be Kieboom and a solid back-up for him. Then if Turner gets hurt you slide Kieboom over and the decent back-up in. That's probably the smarter play. But still I'd rather keep Kieboom where he is if possible.
I have no issues with Trea the starter as long as he's here. He's not quite as good as you think but he's also slightly more important that he should be. His skill set (speed) add something to the offense it lacks when he's out. He puts pressure on the D and the pitcher whenever he doesn't strike out. I'll note I'm not enthused by the direction of his stats and can easily see a straight average year coming in 2020 but again, that's still a starter in 2020 and we can worry about 2021 after 2020.
Out of the box suggestion :
I have none. I guess maybe re-sign Dozier and let Kieboom back-up two positions rather than start? Nah that's not OOB. Really my 2B suggestion is the OOB suggestion here. Trade for Lindor, move Turner over.
Last year discussion revisited
We expected and got Trea all day. There was a little worry after 2018 that Trea could be an average hitter and an average hitter can put up a below average year but even then he'd be cheap, he can field, and he can run. He's a starter. The good news is that he didn't have a below average year, he went in the other direction. Like everyone he hit more homers, but also walked less and struck out more. Defensively the one season "THE BEST" that I warned you not to pay much attention to, revert back to the usual "He's fine" level. All in all a very positive player considering position and cost. There's probably good reason to think he won't be a star and the half-season we saw in 2016 was the best he can be but that's not really worrying.
What is worrying is we saw when he's hurt the Nats don't have a good plan. Difo started a lot when Turner was out early and he was so bad they went with not carrying a back-up SS for a good portion of the time when Turner was healthy. Kieboom spent the other time there and he wasn't good and is wanted to play 2B.
Presumed Plan : Turner plays short. A FA shortstop is on the roster to back him up.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan :I hope I don't have to explain why Trea should start. If you rank SSs he doesn't look that great. Middle of the road in the field, lower Top 10 in hitting. But SS is deep right now and Trea is a very positive player in this very competitive position. Depending on how you put things I can see him as your #3 SS in the majors or the #8 but anyway you slice it he starts.
But last year he again missed major time. The Nats did not have a good plan in place for this and suffered for it. That's why I think they take the time to bring someone in. I think, in line with yesterday's plan this guy will also cover back-up 2B for Kieboom and free them up to spend money on other back-ups, positions, and the pen.
Problems with Presumed Plan :The big issue is the SS field is not deep. There are four FA SS and while they are all decent choices, they are likely to be grabbed up pretty quick. I think everyone's thinking is the same here. Watch Didi sign somewhere to start, try to catch the slick fielding Iglesias as a back-up. A lot of teams are going to be disappointed because Iglesias can't play for 10 teams. After that there will be a scramble for Jordy Mercer (eh) and Hechavarria (eh) and then... nothing. If the Nats don't act quick they can supplement from the deep 2B FA class but the fielding will suffer
So act fast or suffer when Trea gets hurt and Trea will likely get hurt at some point given his history
My take : The Nats are dumb if they don't do a better job backing up Trea. History tells us that. Should they bother to act fast and overpay? I don't know. Depends on what their overall strategy is here. It doesn't look like they are acting fast on the pen and its quite possible having both Rendon and Strasburg in discussions has slowed everything else down. So I'm worried it'll be Difo again. Better than that would be Kieboom and a solid back-up for him. Then if Turner gets hurt you slide Kieboom over and the decent back-up in. That's probably the smarter play. But still I'd rather keep Kieboom where he is if possible.
I have no issues with Trea the starter as long as he's here. He's not quite as good as you think but he's also slightly more important that he should be. His skill set (speed) add something to the offense it lacks when he's out. He puts pressure on the D and the pitcher whenever he doesn't strike out. I'll note I'm not enthused by the direction of his stats and can easily see a straight average year coming in 2020 but again, that's still a starter in 2020 and we can worry about 2021 after 2020.
Out of the box suggestion :
I have none. I guess maybe re-sign Dozier and let Kieboom back-up two positions rather than start? Nah that's not OOB. Really my 2B suggestion is the OOB suggestion here. Trade for Lindor, move Turner over.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Off-Season Position Discussion : Second Base
Last year discussion revisited
Something that will be apparent as we run through this is that the Nats were not very good in a lot of places in 2019. But they were so good with the starting pitching and in a couple other places and no one in the NL other than the Dodgers were overall great that the Nats rose to the cream of the non-Dodger crop. Second base was one of those not very good positions.
After a bit of back and forth, second base became mostly Dozier's spot with a late season Asdrubal Cabrera run. Dozier rebounded from a disappointing 2018 featuring a dismal late season/ playoff run to be kind of average. He was ok in the field again and hit acceptably at the plate. His big time power seemed gone (20 homers in the 2019 environment is not impressive, even in 135 games), but enough remained that with some patience he wasn't a hole. Still it wasn't good hitting so when Howie could play there Howie did play there (and hit as usual) and later Asdrubal basically took the position from him. All in all as a catchall position second worked out to be about average but Dozier had to be carried the last few steps there. Dozier heads to FA and really whether he comes back or not is only a big deal if they don't bother to figure out a plan to replace his averageness.
More importantly for 2020 - a trial run for Carter Kieboom went spectacularly bad. He hit .128 withno two homers as his only XBH and 16 strikeouts in 43 PAs. The hope for the Nats, that Kieboom would roll into the line-up as at least a starting player like guys like Turner (for Desmond), Soto (for Bryce) and Robles (for the gaping CF hole) did was not met. This leaves the Nats in a bit of a bad position.
My OOB idea (trading for Merrifield and Sal Perez, re-sign Bryce) would have been fun and good and cost you Kieboom and Robles but the Nats would have been very damn good last year. Of course it's a fantasy land trade.
Presumed Plan : Kieboom gets his run. Nats bring in a solid back-up in case that plan fails. Kendrick or Dozier would work fine if they can make it happen. Along with Dozier, Starlin Castro, Johnathon Schoop, and Jason Kipnis are fringy starters who would make excellent back-ups. There seems to be enough middling talent out there to repeat last year's aaproach which waited out the early market then pounced in January on the best available with a reasonable one-year deal.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : The Nats like to find out things early and Kieboom is developmentally at the stage where he should get a long run in the majors to see if he can hang. He hit fine in Fresno last year not letting the bad MLB experience get to him which is good and at an old 22* . If he is ready that goes a long way to cementing a position for the Nats who looking forward only have a couple of spots (CF, LF) covered for more than a couple of years with good young talent.
The Nats also need to find out what they have in Kieboom in part to figure out what to do with Luis Garcia, another 2B prospect and going into last year probably their 2nd best overall prospect behind Kieboom. Garcia struggled a bit in 2019, and did again down the stretch in the Fall League, but is another real young guy (20 next May) so has a good 2-3 years left to straighten out. If he does that, and Kieboom is usable, that is a problem - but a good one. They need then to figure out where everyone goes, or if they use someone to get say... a young starter?
Anyway - it all starts with Kieboom. But you can't rely on him being good, especially after last year so you bring in a guy to back him up that you'd be ok with starting. FA seems to have a glut of middling talent here so they should be able to find someone here.
Problems with Presumed Plan : Sure he hit in Fresno last year. It's the PCL. Everyone hits. His .903 OPS was 4th on the team and just ahead of Andrew Stevenson who we've seen enough of to know he's not a real good hitter. He was better than average at a young age but nothing in particular makes you think he'll be a star. Competent major leaguer is more likely the end point for Kieboom. That's fine but it's not what they were hoping for.
If he takes a couple more years to find his footing, which is possible giving the lack of overwhelming talent, he will give you a below average option at second. Then you probably have a choice between Kieboom and his below average run and the veteran back-up who's likely a little better but still below average. Basically you are setting up this position, at least in 2020, to be below average. There's hope for better but not expectations.
My take : This is the position to short change. You need to see what Kieboom can do so let him. There are so many options in the market that you can probably get an ok guy like the ones I mentioned, cheap, and a decent player dirt cheap. Also that means there will likely be a whole set of replacement options available in August if the position doesn't work out and the Nats are heading for the playoffs again.
Second base isn't the star turn position right now. Try Carter. Hope he works out or Garcia has a breakout minor league season and sets himself up for 2021. In the meantime make sure all the other positions are secure. Bring back Rendon and Strasburg, make the better compromise at first (Frazier) and platoon catcher and get some pen guys.
Out of the box suggestion :
Move Turner over to 2B. Empty the miors for Lindor. He's arbitration cheap for a few years and a great SS and Turner, who's a solid SS, would likely be a great 2B. Yes this basically ends the long term run for the Nats as their minors would be bereft of talent, but with the pitching staff the age it is aiming for the next 3 years makes more sense then trying to figure out how this works long term or praying another Soto like star drops in their lap.
*remember July 1st is the cutoff date for ages and for me "OLD" is turning the age sometime July-Oct of the previous year and "YOUNG" is turning it sometime Apr-June of the current year. Older you get the less it matters but I like to not it for guys under 25 coming up. Next year Kieboom will be an old 22 (he'll turn 23 in season) and Garcia will be a young 20 (he'll start the season at 19)
Something that will be apparent as we run through this is that the Nats were not very good in a lot of places in 2019. But they were so good with the starting pitching and in a couple other places and no one in the NL other than the Dodgers were overall great that the Nats rose to the cream of the non-Dodger crop. Second base was one of those not very good positions.
After a bit of back and forth, second base became mostly Dozier's spot with a late season Asdrubal Cabrera run. Dozier rebounded from a disappointing 2018 featuring a dismal late season/ playoff run to be kind of average. He was ok in the field again and hit acceptably at the plate. His big time power seemed gone (20 homers in the 2019 environment is not impressive, even in 135 games), but enough remained that with some patience he wasn't a hole. Still it wasn't good hitting so when Howie could play there Howie did play there (and hit as usual) and later Asdrubal basically took the position from him. All in all as a catchall position second worked out to be about average but Dozier had to be carried the last few steps there. Dozier heads to FA and really whether he comes back or not is only a big deal if they don't bother to figure out a plan to replace his averageness.
More importantly for 2020 - a trial run for Carter Kieboom went spectacularly bad. He hit .128 with
My OOB idea (trading for Merrifield and Sal Perez, re-sign Bryce) would have been fun and good and cost you Kieboom and Robles but the Nats would have been very damn good last year. Of course it's a fantasy land trade.
Presumed Plan : Kieboom gets his run. Nats bring in a solid back-up in case that plan fails. Kendrick or Dozier would work fine if they can make it happen. Along with Dozier, Starlin Castro, Johnathon Schoop, and Jason Kipnis are fringy starters who would make excellent back-ups. There seems to be enough middling talent out there to repeat last year's aaproach which waited out the early market then pounced in January on the best available with a reasonable one-year deal.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : The Nats like to find out things early and Kieboom is developmentally at the stage where he should get a long run in the majors to see if he can hang. He hit fine in Fresno last year not letting the bad MLB experience get to him which is good and at an old 22* . If he is ready that goes a long way to cementing a position for the Nats who looking forward only have a couple of spots (CF, LF) covered for more than a couple of years with good young talent.
The Nats also need to find out what they have in Kieboom in part to figure out what to do with Luis Garcia, another 2B prospect and going into last year probably their 2nd best overall prospect behind Kieboom. Garcia struggled a bit in 2019, and did again down the stretch in the Fall League, but is another real young guy (20 next May) so has a good 2-3 years left to straighten out. If he does that, and Kieboom is usable, that is a problem - but a good one. They need then to figure out where everyone goes, or if they use someone to get say... a young starter?
Anyway - it all starts with Kieboom. But you can't rely on him being good, especially after last year so you bring in a guy to back him up that you'd be ok with starting. FA seems to have a glut of middling talent here so they should be able to find someone here.
Problems with Presumed Plan : Sure he hit in Fresno last year. It's the PCL. Everyone hits. His .903 OPS was 4th on the team and just ahead of Andrew Stevenson who we've seen enough of to know he's not a real good hitter. He was better than average at a young age but nothing in particular makes you think he'll be a star. Competent major leaguer is more likely the end point for Kieboom. That's fine but it's not what they were hoping for.
If he takes a couple more years to find his footing, which is possible giving the lack of overwhelming talent, he will give you a below average option at second. Then you probably have a choice between Kieboom and his below average run and the veteran back-up who's likely a little better but still below average. Basically you are setting up this position, at least in 2020, to be below average. There's hope for better but not expectations.
My take : This is the position to short change. You need to see what Kieboom can do so let him. There are so many options in the market that you can probably get an ok guy like the ones I mentioned, cheap, and a decent player dirt cheap. Also that means there will likely be a whole set of replacement options available in August if the position doesn't work out and the Nats are heading for the playoffs again.
Second base isn't the star turn position right now. Try Carter. Hope he works out or Garcia has a breakout minor league season and sets himself up for 2021. In the meantime make sure all the other positions are secure. Bring back Rendon and Strasburg, make the better compromise at first (Frazier) and platoon catcher and get some pen guys.
Out of the box suggestion :
Move Turner over to 2B. Empty the miors for Lindor. He's arbitration cheap for a few years and a great SS and Turner, who's a solid SS, would likely be a great 2B. Yes this basically ends the long term run for the Nats as their minors would be bereft of talent, but with the pitching staff the age it is aiming for the next 3 years makes more sense then trying to figure out how this works long term or praying another Soto like star drops in their lap.
*remember July 1st is the cutoff date for ages and for me "OLD" is turning the age sometime July-Oct of the previous year and "YOUNG" is turning it sometime Apr-June of the current year. Older you get the less it matters but I like to not it for guys under 25 coming up. Next year Kieboom will be an old 22 (he'll turn 23 in season) and Garcia will be a young 20 (he'll start the season at 19)
Friday, November 15, 2019
Off-Season Position Discussion : First Base
Is it that time of year already? Actually we're doing this way later!
First thing though - what about the QO calls yesterday. Quick thoughts - Odorizzi accepting and Abreu accepting bumps up the market for SP and 1B respectively. I don't think it really effects what Stras was asking for (and what the Nats should pay him). Wil Smith going to the Braves is a shame - the Nats need relievers because the playoff plan won't work over 162 games in 190 days.
Last year discussion
Another year of rinse (Zimm is your starter, with a LHB backup) and repeat. I was surprised that the Nats could get Adams back because he was really good in 2018. In 2019 you saw why as the wheels came off and he struck out an amazing 115 times in only 333 plate appearances. Ryan Zimmerman wasn't healthy either playing only 52 games and hitting a measly .257 / .321 / .415. By all accounts the plan failed.
But Plan B worked great. Howie got nearly as many PAs at 1B as Zimm (166 vs 170) and was fantastic. Parra got some decent ABs here early as well. All in all first base ended up a disappointment in comparison to the league, but it did give Howie a place to settle and do his thing so it was merely below average instead of the terrible hole it could have been.
If there was any issue beyond that it was that no one playing first could really field the position. But first base is a place you can hide that and with Dozier bouncing back to OK, instead of Daniel Murphy manning the keystone, the Nats weren't in a terrible place there.
My OOB plan - which are remember just trying to come up with things that haven't been thought of or maybe have been and are crazy, I do not advocate these things as things that should be done. - was to bring in Daniel Murphy. He ended up costing too much, beyond what I would have been ok with for this role. Then he got injured, stunk when he started the season and never got his final season stats back to where they should have been
Presumed Plan : Is there one? I think the fans would welcome Zimm back. I know the fans would welcome Howie back. Adams is gone to the ether. I'd love to see Soto there honestly but they aren't going to push that until they have to. So what happens? Bring Asdrubal Cabrera back?
Twist my arm and I'll say Zimm is back under a cheap deal and the starter is... (twist) OW! Matt Joyce!
Reasoning on Presumed Plan :
I think Zimm was ready to retire but winning (fun) and not leaving on his terms (disappointing) brings him back for another year. I think he'll be more than accommodating to whatever contract the Nats want to give him. But I think his play suggest he's a bench bat, not even a platoon. A back-up for a full-time first baseman. (In that way I guess it doesn't matter if the full-timer is right or left handed.)
Howie would be ideal here but he deserves a solid 2 year deal, even in the new baseball, and would be best served by taking that sort of deal for an AL team where he could also DH. So I think he's going to price himself out of returning. After him the first base market is dead slim. Eric Thames is the best option and he is good - but as the only option above guys like Moreland, Smoak, and Neil Walker he's going to get more than he should.
So that leaves guys you move around. Dozier is a possibility, though it feels iffy he'll stay here because I think he wants to play 2B and the Nats would be best served giving Kieboom time. Donaldson would be an idea or Moustakas but they are pricey and it's a waste of their skill set to sit them at first. They are more likely "post-Rendon" targets. Going through the OFs there are again not a lot of good names, but there are more options that should hit ok. Going through there I'm looking for the cheapest good option with relatively consistent work and I come up with Matt Joyce. He'll be cheap because of his age (36 next August) but he's gone 118 OPS+ or better three of the last four year. He is not a bopper - instead has 10-20 HR power and spent last year walking like a machine and getting familiar with NL East pitching with Atlanta.
Look it's just a guess here. There is no plan that I see so I'm looking at the best option given some assumptions - Howie gone, Dozier gone, Nats spend money on SP/3B situation not 1B. If you want my preferred order in plans it would be
Problems with Presumed Plan :
For mine specifically - Joyce doesn't homer and isn't a natural fit in the Nats line-up that starts with Turner/Eaton. The best fit, assuming Rendon is back, would be a righty masher. He's old. He hasn't played first. He's slow. He's not a particularly good fielder.
For a FA in general - unless you move a great hitter moved or go after the best 1B available there are huge question marks with every choice. Todd Frazier? Asivail Garcia? Starlin Casto? Slick defender Logan Forsythe?
My take :
I don't like this move. Any choice I see the Nats making here is a compromise so it's not going to be ideal and it'll have the same downside as all the Ryan Zimmerman+ ideas that they've had for the past half-decade and little of the upside. But I'm thinking that given $ to 3b and SP this is what I think they do. They make a compromise move to cover first base.
I lean with a guy like Joyce because I am leaning a little more toward the Nats aiming for a guy likely to give ok production and likely to be pretty cheap. They've rarely see a reason to throw decent money at C+ players like say Frazier or Garcia might get given their range of production possibilities. But with something like this we'll all have our own opinions. I personally do like Frazier. A bit more healthier. I think his power fits into the Nats line-up better. Maybe health is most important to you. Or homers. Or maybe you are willing to shell out a little more for a 1B and try to save money elsewhere (as usual with the Nats that would likely be skrimping on the bullpen). This is less a take, and more a shrug and a guess.
Out of the box suggestion :
The likely scenario is an out of the box suggestion I think but I guess I'll go back to MOVE SOTO. He did get better yes, but he wasn't good. He doesn't get great jumps and he misreads balls all the time and at some point that body is going to age into something that can't compensate for those things. You can say he'll keep getting better but you are talking about a guy who's been instructed on the OF for half a decade now. Where is this magical improvement going to come from that makes him so good that when he starts to age in a year or two that his skill is good enough to cover for that?
Move him and use the entire selection of OFs to replace him in LF.
First thing though - what about the QO calls yesterday. Quick thoughts - Odorizzi accepting and Abreu accepting bumps up the market for SP and 1B respectively. I don't think it really effects what Stras was asking for (and what the Nats should pay him). Wil Smith going to the Braves is a shame - the Nats need relievers because the playoff plan won't work over 162 games in 190 days.
Last year discussion
Another year of rinse (Zimm is your starter, with a LHB backup) and repeat. I was surprised that the Nats could get Adams back because he was really good in 2018. In 2019 you saw why as the wheels came off and he struck out an amazing 115 times in only 333 plate appearances. Ryan Zimmerman wasn't healthy either playing only 52 games and hitting a measly .257 / .321 / .415. By all accounts the plan failed.
But Plan B worked great. Howie got nearly as many PAs at 1B as Zimm (166 vs 170) and was fantastic. Parra got some decent ABs here early as well. All in all first base ended up a disappointment in comparison to the league, but it did give Howie a place to settle and do his thing so it was merely below average instead of the terrible hole it could have been.
If there was any issue beyond that it was that no one playing first could really field the position. But first base is a place you can hide that and with Dozier bouncing back to OK, instead of Daniel Murphy manning the keystone, the Nats weren't in a terrible place there.
My OOB plan - which are remember just trying to come up with things that haven't been thought of or maybe have been and are crazy, I do not advocate these things as things that should be done. - was to bring in Daniel Murphy. He ended up costing too much, beyond what I would have been ok with for this role. Then he got injured, stunk when he started the season and never got his final season stats back to where they should have been
Presumed Plan : Is there one? I think the fans would welcome Zimm back. I know the fans would welcome Howie back. Adams is gone to the ether. I'd love to see Soto there honestly but they aren't going to push that until they have to. So what happens? Bring Asdrubal Cabrera back?
Twist my arm and I'll say Zimm is back under a cheap deal and the starter is... (twist) OW! Matt Joyce!
Reasoning on Presumed Plan :
I think Zimm was ready to retire but winning (fun) and not leaving on his terms (disappointing) brings him back for another year. I think he'll be more than accommodating to whatever contract the Nats want to give him. But I think his play suggest he's a bench bat, not even a platoon. A back-up for a full-time first baseman. (In that way I guess it doesn't matter if the full-timer is right or left handed.)
Howie would be ideal here but he deserves a solid 2 year deal, even in the new baseball, and would be best served by taking that sort of deal for an AL team where he could also DH. So I think he's going to price himself out of returning. After him the first base market is dead slim. Eric Thames is the best option and he is good - but as the only option above guys like Moreland, Smoak, and Neil Walker he's going to get more than he should.
So that leaves guys you move around. Dozier is a possibility, though it feels iffy he'll stay here because I think he wants to play 2B and the Nats would be best served giving Kieboom time. Donaldson would be an idea or Moustakas but they are pricey and it's a waste of their skill set to sit them at first. They are more likely "post-Rendon" targets. Going through the OFs there are again not a lot of good names, but there are more options that should hit ok. Going through there I'm looking for the cheapest good option with relatively consistent work and I come up with Matt Joyce. He'll be cheap because of his age (36 next August) but he's gone 118 OPS+ or better three of the last four year. He is not a bopper - instead has 10-20 HR power and spent last year walking like a machine and getting familiar with NL East pitching with Atlanta.
Look it's just a guess here. There is no plan that I see so I'm looking at the best option given some assumptions - Howie gone, Dozier gone, Nats spend money on SP/3B situation not 1B. If you want my preferred order in plans it would be
- Howie back!
- Dozier back splits time between first and second, but mostly plays first
- FA
Problems with Presumed Plan :
For mine specifically - Joyce doesn't homer and isn't a natural fit in the Nats line-up that starts with Turner/Eaton. The best fit, assuming Rendon is back, would be a righty masher. He's old. He hasn't played first. He's slow. He's not a particularly good fielder.
For a FA in general - unless you move a great hitter moved or go after the best 1B available there are huge question marks with every choice. Todd Frazier? Asivail Garcia? Starlin Casto? Slick defender Logan Forsythe?
My take :
I don't like this move. Any choice I see the Nats making here is a compromise so it's not going to be ideal and it'll have the same downside as all the Ryan Zimmerman+ ideas that they've had for the past half-decade and little of the upside. But I'm thinking that given $ to 3b and SP this is what I think they do. They make a compromise move to cover first base.
I lean with a guy like Joyce because I am leaning a little more toward the Nats aiming for a guy likely to give ok production and likely to be pretty cheap. They've rarely see a reason to throw decent money at C+ players like say Frazier or Garcia might get given their range of production possibilities. But with something like this we'll all have our own opinions. I personally do like Frazier. A bit more healthier. I think his power fits into the Nats line-up better. Maybe health is most important to you. Or homers. Or maybe you are willing to shell out a little more for a 1B and try to save money elsewhere (as usual with the Nats that would likely be skrimping on the bullpen). This is less a take, and more a shrug and a guess.
Out of the box suggestion :
The likely scenario is an out of the box suggestion I think but I guess I'll go back to MOVE SOTO. He did get better yes, but he wasn't good. He doesn't get great jumps and he misreads balls all the time and at some point that body is going to age into something that can't compensate for those things. You can say he'll keep getting better but you are talking about a guy who's been instructed on the OF for half a decade now. Where is this magical improvement going to come from that makes him so good that when he starts to age in a year or two that his skill is good enough to cover for that?
Move him and use the entire selection of OFs to replace him in LF.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Veteran's Day quickie
The GMs are meeting but these meetings are essentially just a starting point. Things rarely happen here in comparison to the baseball Winter Meetings and even that time frame (early December) seems to be falling by the wayside to "waiting everyone out to get a deal and if not shrugging their shoulders and telling fans 'it wasn't cost effective' and letting the analyst fans and media defend the teams actions as 'forward-thinking'"
Why does little happen here? Well part of the reason is it's so early in the process qualifying offers don't have to be decided on yet. Technically both Rendon and Strasburg are sitting on theirs. Everyone expects rejection. As Cab, Dozier, Hellickson, Hudson, Parra, Rodney, Adams, Gomes, and Zimm all did not get QOs and are free to go where ever. Today a quick review :
Middle Infield
Cabrera : aging MI best described as a back-up 2B/3B, and 2B is iffy. Up and down career, he was having a run of above average seasons at the plate before dropping below last year. Switch hitter
Dozier : also aging, but a year younger, 2B. Looked bad in 2018 but rebounded in 2019 to look... well useful. Defense came back with slightly limited playing time. Bat, not so much. Pop and some patience righty who can mash lefties still (if 2018 is a fluke which seems to be likely)
Out of the two Dozier gives you better D. Offense is a mixed bag. Switch hitters are obviously real useful and with Kieboom likely up gives him a more natural back-up. But a guy that can really hit one type can be a very useful bench bat. I'd expect Dozier back and not As Cab, dependent on Dozier not finding a starting job somewhere else which is possible.
First Base
Adams : Brought in to platoon with Zimm, Adams was a nice piece in 2018, but last year his K rate went up to a staggering 34.5% and in an environment of exploding offense didn't do much more. Mediocre fielder
Zimm : When healthy will hit veteran wasn't healthy and didn't hit. No range anymore at first. Keeping him would be an entirely sentimental move with the idea that he backs up a LH firstbaseman and as a non-starter, he can get healthy again.
If you want a ruthless move, neither comes back. There is great sentiment though to keep Zimm but it can only work if he takes a very low salary. If you take Zimm though, it's hard to keep Dozier imo because the bench doesn't need two guys to pinch hit against LHP.
Relief
Hudson : Did everything the Nats asked him to, but a quick look at the stats suggest a guy who relied on weak fly balls? Is that a thing. No reason to think he can't be useful in a pen but a back end role seems unlikely to match his performance
Rodney : Fun but not good last year - but good for the Nats and good in most years before last. He's a high GB guy who is wild but strikes people out. Age is of course a concern but workload in 2019 was limited so might have one more useful year left.
Honestly out of the two I'd keep Rodney. Rodney will likely come back for a cheap 1 year deal, where Hudson might parlay his success into something he slightly does not deserve (nowadays no one gets really overpaid). Yes, that means the Nats need bullpen help
Everyone else
Gomes : Gomes' non-option is the closest thing to a surprise for the Nats off-season so far. There was a sense he would be the catcher for a while if things worked out. But he while still solid behind the plate, his mistakes jumped out at you and with his bat disappearing for the second time in his career it was easy enough to move on if you wanted to.
Hellickson : He was hurt and looked bad and has disappointed the Nats health wise two years in a row. Even if they liked him they can't bring him back outside of a NRI. They need something more reliable.
Parra : After a fast start was sneaky terrible for the Nats whose best trait is "not a terrible corner OF". I have a hard time justifying why he should be on a major league roster in 2020. Bench coach? Maybe.
I suppose out of the three Gomes might be back, the Nats cutting him loose to try to sign him back at a contract more in line with his production. The catcher pipeline still isn't demanding any chances, but at this point maybe you try Read/Gushue just to see what you have? Hellickson and Parra there just isn't any sound justification outside of "bring everyone back" to do it. Neither should be productive in 2020.
Other than that a bunch of organizational depth was let go - no one you have to care about at all. Like really - nothing interesting.
So I guess I've talked myself into bringing back Rodney maybe? OK. I'm fine with that.
Why does little happen here? Well part of the reason is it's so early in the process qualifying offers don't have to be decided on yet. Technically both Rendon and Strasburg are sitting on theirs. Everyone expects rejection. As Cab, Dozier, Hellickson, Hudson, Parra, Rodney, Adams, Gomes, and Zimm all did not get QOs and are free to go where ever. Today a quick review :
Middle Infield
Cabrera : aging MI best described as a back-up 2B/3B, and 2B is iffy. Up and down career, he was having a run of above average seasons at the plate before dropping below last year. Switch hitter
Dozier : also aging, but a year younger, 2B. Looked bad in 2018 but rebounded in 2019 to look... well useful. Defense came back with slightly limited playing time. Bat, not so much. Pop and some patience righty who can mash lefties still (if 2018 is a fluke which seems to be likely)
Out of the two Dozier gives you better D. Offense is a mixed bag. Switch hitters are obviously real useful and with Kieboom likely up gives him a more natural back-up. But a guy that can really hit one type can be a very useful bench bat. I'd expect Dozier back and not As Cab, dependent on Dozier not finding a starting job somewhere else which is possible.
First Base
Adams : Brought in to platoon with Zimm, Adams was a nice piece in 2018, but last year his K rate went up to a staggering 34.5% and in an environment of exploding offense didn't do much more. Mediocre fielder
Zimm : When healthy will hit veteran wasn't healthy and didn't hit. No range anymore at first. Keeping him would be an entirely sentimental move with the idea that he backs up a LH firstbaseman and as a non-starter, he can get healthy again.
If you want a ruthless move, neither comes back. There is great sentiment though to keep Zimm but it can only work if he takes a very low salary. If you take Zimm though, it's hard to keep Dozier imo because the bench doesn't need two guys to pinch hit against LHP.
Relief
Hudson : Did everything the Nats asked him to, but a quick look at the stats suggest a guy who relied on weak fly balls? Is that a thing. No reason to think he can't be useful in a pen but a back end role seems unlikely to match his performance
Rodney : Fun but not good last year - but good for the Nats and good in most years before last. He's a high GB guy who is wild but strikes people out. Age is of course a concern but workload in 2019 was limited so might have one more useful year left.
Honestly out of the two I'd keep Rodney. Rodney will likely come back for a cheap 1 year deal, where Hudson might parlay his success into something he slightly does not deserve (nowadays no one gets really overpaid). Yes, that means the Nats need bullpen help
Everyone else
Gomes : Gomes' non-option is the closest thing to a surprise for the Nats off-season so far. There was a sense he would be the catcher for a while if things worked out. But he while still solid behind the plate, his mistakes jumped out at you and with his bat disappearing for the second time in his career it was easy enough to move on if you wanted to.
Hellickson : He was hurt and looked bad and has disappointed the Nats health wise two years in a row. Even if they liked him they can't bring him back outside of a NRI. They need something more reliable.
Parra : After a fast start was sneaky terrible for the Nats whose best trait is "not a terrible corner OF". I have a hard time justifying why he should be on a major league roster in 2020. Bench coach? Maybe.
I suppose out of the three Gomes might be back, the Nats cutting him loose to try to sign him back at a contract more in line with his production. The catcher pipeline still isn't demanding any chances, but at this point maybe you try Read/Gushue just to see what you have? Hellickson and Parra there just isn't any sound justification outside of "bring everyone back" to do it. Neither should be productive in 2020.
Other than that a bunch of organizational depth was let go - no one you have to care about at all. Like really - nothing interesting.
So I guess I've talked myself into bringing back Rodney maybe? OK. I'm fine with that.
Thursday, November 07, 2019
Best postseason ever? Good luck figuring that out
So a little side note - before contract stuff mainly because contract stuff is likely to drag on at least until early December and more likely until the new year.
The Nats had an amazing run this year. From 19-31, comebacks through multiple elimination games. There were a bunch of things the Nats did that were either rarely or never done before. Because of that there's a lot of fans and local media that want to crown this team a miracle squad who had the best post-season ever, or failing that the most improbable. On one hand, nearly every team does this in some fashion. Either your postseason was the most dominant, or most exciting, or most crazy, etc. etc. It's what fans do. On the other hand, even outsiders are getting into the bit. So what does I say, the outsider's insider? Was this season the most improbable run imaginable?
It's hard to figure out!
First let's go to two points that are generally brought up. The Nats came back from 19-31 record to make the playoffs. The Nats won 5 elimination games after trailing. What does that tell you? Well it does tell you that they did things that were never done before. But in terms of improbability are we looking at it the right way?
It's true that precious few teams overcome a start as bad as the Nats do to make the playoffs (forget about win the WS for a moment - these things follow separate rules and should be seen as two distinct things imo). But there's a good reason for that that has nothing to do with the fortitude of the team involved. The vast vast majority of teams, pretty much all, that start as bad as the Nats did fail to make the playoffs because they are bad teams who lack the talent to do so. That's not the Nats. The Nats are a good team. Most pundits and projections had them in or near the playoffs. So what's really strange isn't the fact they made the playoffs but that they bungled to the start they did. Should they be "rewarded" for this? Given praise for the fastest clean up of a mess of their own making? It seems kind of weird to me. This isn't to make coming back from 19-31 less impressive a feat, the run after that is remarkable, but I want to make sure we understand the 19-31 wasn't some arbitrary burden given to this team. They did this. Part of their season was crashing so hard that they needed a tremendous run. That is not good. That should detract from their accomplishments, not add to it.
That same sort of "how'd they get here" should be taken into account in series and games as well, though to a far lesser extent. Good teams shouldn't start seasons bad, but series where good teams against good teams will create elimination games for someone, and every team will have to comeback in games regularly. So there's far less of a "detract" component here. But there is a reality that needs to be injected. There is a chance that the Nats win every series they are in. There's a chance they win it in 4 games, 5, 6, 7 and a chance they lose it the same. The improbability of what we end up seeing is really the chance that they ended up at this point (and won) + the chances they could have lost earlier MINUS the chances they could have won earlier.
Let me elaborate. The Nats beat the Astros in 7 games. The improbability of that (in the sense the Nats won) is not only the chance that that happened, but it also has to add in in the chances a negative outcome would have happened, the chance the Astros win in 4,5,6,7 games. But on the flip side there was a chance the Nats could have won in 4,5,6 themselves. That they didn't do that has to work against them.
If you follow this way of looking at it you get a more fair idea of "improbability". It's far more improbable that a significantly worse team sweeps 4 games in a row than an equalish team wins a 7 game series. That should be obvious, but the mind doesn't always work like that. We see a bad team buzzsaw as inevitable, a good team fighting to the end as catching breaks and needing miracles.
This kind of thought process can also be expanded to individual games. What combining the odds for all the Nats comeback wins does is tell you what are the chance the Nats would win all those games coming from their point of lowest chances. But it's not the chances they would win all those games apriori. The first tells us how improbable it is that we saw what we saw. The second one tells us how we should judge a team for the outcomes. You don't get a benefit for falling behind in the latter. You shouldn't do that! It's not good!
What you may be able to glean from the above is that the most exciting things in sports often involve a team doing something wrong and coming back from that. But we often dismiss that first part - that they dug a hole and focus only on the latter. If we're being completely fair we need to take the whole thing into account.
What are the most improbable series then? The ones where the worst teams best better teams quickly. The 88 win 2014 Giants who racked up a 11-5 record never once playing a team with a worse record. The middling 2003 Cardinals who did the same after an 83 win season, ditto the 2000 87 win Yankees. The 74 As, the 88 Dodgers, 90 Reds. I know I know these aren't FUN series in general. There's no excitement to be had with a Yankees team cruising to title number 4 in 5 seasons even if objectively the team they put out there shouldn't have been able to do that. But you didn't ask about fun and it's not how this postseason is being framed. It's not that the Nats wouldn't be somewhere up there - the opponents they beat were very good and they had to go through a lot of rounds - but the actual advantage the other teams had in a short series with the Nats staff? It's muted. So maybe the Nats aren't even Top five, maybe Top 10 in pure "improbability" (Now of course to do this properly you'd have to go back and calculate all the odds of all these series somehow. I'm not doing that.)
In the end though - this is a lot of words that are kind of missing the point. It's not that you REALLY care what's the most improbable series - even though that's what ends up being said and annoying me - you care about what's the most... crazy? fun? Entertaining? series. And that has to be measured differently. That has to be measured with comebacks and elimination games won and long series and historical importance. And clearly this Nats season would be up there for that.
If you dig a little you'll see that a lot of playoff winners had some adversity - either playing better teams, or winning elimination games so it'll take time to rank them all. Like scratch at a team... 1980 Phillies and you see a CS with 4 straight extra inning games - the last two being Phillies elimination game wins and a WS that features a ninth inning comeback to win G5. A team with a huge history of being terrible winning their first title. That's pretty good!
My personal favorite and one that I put above the Nats is the 1985 Royals. They had knocked on the door and lost some heart breaking playoff games in the CS and WS in years past. They clearly had a horrible offense (look for yourself) and faced two legitimately 100 win teams in the CS and WS (ok one was 99). Then proceeded to win 6 elimination games, 3 in each series, including a bottom of the 9th walk-off comeback in Game 6.
That's the only one just looking off the top of my head I'd clearly have ahead of the Nats. This was a team that shouldn't have made the playoffs and once in shouldn't have beat either team. The Nats were not as good as the Dodgers and Astros but if you look at the stats they were almost equal teams if you could eliminate the pens and the Nats found a way to do that.
Would they fall beyond Number 2? I don't know. Lots of stuff to look at.
The Nats had an amazing run this year. From 19-31, comebacks through multiple elimination games. There were a bunch of things the Nats did that were either rarely or never done before. Because of that there's a lot of fans and local media that want to crown this team a miracle squad who had the best post-season ever, or failing that the most improbable. On one hand, nearly every team does this in some fashion. Either your postseason was the most dominant, or most exciting, or most crazy, etc. etc. It's what fans do. On the other hand, even outsiders are getting into the bit. So what does I say, the outsider's insider? Was this season the most improbable run imaginable?
It's hard to figure out!
First let's go to two points that are generally brought up. The Nats came back from 19-31 record to make the playoffs. The Nats won 5 elimination games after trailing. What does that tell you? Well it does tell you that they did things that were never done before. But in terms of improbability are we looking at it the right way?
It's true that precious few teams overcome a start as bad as the Nats do to make the playoffs (forget about win the WS for a moment - these things follow separate rules and should be seen as two distinct things imo). But there's a good reason for that that has nothing to do with the fortitude of the team involved. The vast vast majority of teams, pretty much all, that start as bad as the Nats did fail to make the playoffs because they are bad teams who lack the talent to do so. That's not the Nats. The Nats are a good team. Most pundits and projections had them in or near the playoffs. So what's really strange isn't the fact they made the playoffs but that they bungled to the start they did. Should they be "rewarded" for this? Given praise for the fastest clean up of a mess of their own making? It seems kind of weird to me. This isn't to make coming back from 19-31 less impressive a feat, the run after that is remarkable, but I want to make sure we understand the 19-31 wasn't some arbitrary burden given to this team. They did this. Part of their season was crashing so hard that they needed a tremendous run. That is not good. That should detract from their accomplishments, not add to it.
That same sort of "how'd they get here" should be taken into account in series and games as well, though to a far lesser extent. Good teams shouldn't start seasons bad, but series where good teams against good teams will create elimination games for someone, and every team will have to comeback in games regularly. So there's far less of a "detract" component here. But there is a reality that needs to be injected. There is a chance that the Nats win every series they are in. There's a chance they win it in 4 games, 5, 6, 7 and a chance they lose it the same. The improbability of what we end up seeing is really the chance that they ended up at this point (and won) + the chances they could have lost earlier MINUS the chances they could have won earlier.
Let me elaborate. The Nats beat the Astros in 7 games. The improbability of that (in the sense the Nats won) is not only the chance that that happened, but it also has to add in in the chances a negative outcome would have happened, the chance the Astros win in 4,5,6,7 games. But on the flip side there was a chance the Nats could have won in 4,5,6 themselves. That they didn't do that has to work against them.
If you follow this way of looking at it you get a more fair idea of "improbability". It's far more improbable that a significantly worse team sweeps 4 games in a row than an equalish team wins a 7 game series. That should be obvious, but the mind doesn't always work like that. We see a bad team buzzsaw as inevitable, a good team fighting to the end as catching breaks and needing miracles.
This kind of thought process can also be expanded to individual games. What combining the odds for all the Nats comeback wins does is tell you what are the chance the Nats would win all those games coming from their point of lowest chances. But it's not the chances they would win all those games apriori. The first tells us how improbable it is that we saw what we saw. The second one tells us how we should judge a team for the outcomes. You don't get a benefit for falling behind in the latter. You shouldn't do that! It's not good!
What you may be able to glean from the above is that the most exciting things in sports often involve a team doing something wrong and coming back from that. But we often dismiss that first part - that they dug a hole and focus only on the latter. If we're being completely fair we need to take the whole thing into account.
What are the most improbable series then? The ones where the worst teams best better teams quickly. The 88 win 2014 Giants who racked up a 11-5 record never once playing a team with a worse record. The middling 2003 Cardinals who did the same after an 83 win season, ditto the 2000 87 win Yankees. The 74 As, the 88 Dodgers, 90 Reds. I know I know these aren't FUN series in general. There's no excitement to be had with a Yankees team cruising to title number 4 in 5 seasons even if objectively the team they put out there shouldn't have been able to do that. But you didn't ask about fun and it's not how this postseason is being framed. It's not that the Nats wouldn't be somewhere up there - the opponents they beat were very good and they had to go through a lot of rounds - but the actual advantage the other teams had in a short series with the Nats staff? It's muted. So maybe the Nats aren't even Top five, maybe Top 10 in pure "improbability" (Now of course to do this properly you'd have to go back and calculate all the odds of all these series somehow. I'm not doing that.)
In the end though - this is a lot of words that are kind of missing the point. It's not that you REALLY care what's the most improbable series - even though that's what ends up being said and annoying me - you care about what's the most... crazy? fun? Entertaining? series. And that has to be measured differently. That has to be measured with comebacks and elimination games won and long series and historical importance. And clearly this Nats season would be up there for that.
If you dig a little you'll see that a lot of playoff winners had some adversity - either playing better teams, or winning elimination games so it'll take time to rank them all. Like scratch at a team... 1980 Phillies and you see a CS with 4 straight extra inning games - the last two being Phillies elimination game wins and a WS that features a ninth inning comeback to win G5. A team with a huge history of being terrible winning their first title. That's pretty good!
My personal favorite and one that I put above the Nats is the 1985 Royals. They had knocked on the door and lost some heart breaking playoff games in the CS and WS in years past. They clearly had a horrible offense (look for yourself) and faced two legitimately 100 win teams in the CS and WS (ok one was 99). Then proceeded to win 6 elimination games, 3 in each series, including a bottom of the 9th walk-off comeback in Game 6.
That's the only one just looking off the top of my head I'd clearly have ahead of the Nats. This was a team that shouldn't have made the playoffs and once in shouldn't have beat either team. The Nats were not as good as the Dodgers and Astros but if you look at the stats they were almost equal teams if you could eliminate the pens and the Nats found a way to do that.
Would they fall beyond Number 2? I don't know. Lots of stuff to look at.
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
Wednesday BLAST
So work emergency hit on Monday so that never got done and now we're even further out so I'm just going to blast through everything so far and we'll talk about it more later
Game 7
I talked about before that usually to win in the playoffs you have to be lucky and good. In game 7 the Nats were as lucky as they ever were and as good too.
The Nats MO in the WC, NLDS, and WS had been fairly simple. Have the starter go as long as possible so you only have to use Doolitte, Hudson, and the starter on off-day to close it out. On the other side, wait until the other guys make a mistake and CRUSH them for it. Hader early after Pomeranz was cruising? CRUSH. Urias faces Rendon with a open base then sticks around after Soto to face Kendrick? CRUSH. Kershaw faces Rendon, nobody goes out to settle him? CRUSH. Pull crusing Maeda use Joe Kelly... didn't crush! Use Joe Kelly for second inning DESTROY. Let Cole face Soto after a walk and two single in the inning? SOTO CRUSH. Try to get Verlander his win, then replace him with Pressly - like their 4th best reliever, don't pull Pressly after giving up lead? CRUSH. Try again to get a gassed Verlander with WS win CRUSH. * That's like seriously almost all their playoff wins in these series.**
Game 7 was different. First off the pitching performance wasn't good. There had been wobbles in the past in the wins. Early inning tests that were either passed or lucked out of before the starter settled down and carried the team as long as they needed. Max didn't wobble. Max was kind of bad. We talk about Max having a gutty performance but it wasn't as gutty as we normally describe it. Usually when we say "gutty" we mean a guy not having it but still pitching in a way that gets the other team to do what he wants. But Max didn't do that. Max threw a whole lot of batting practice fastballs and got very very lucky. Just the two out hits : Second inning - line drive... right at Soto. Third inning - 400 ft fly ball... to the deepest part of the park. Fourth inning - line drive... right at Robles. Any one of those could have broken the game open. Hell he almost got it again in the 5th where Correa smashed it but a full extension Rendon came inches from snagging it. He did get a couple outs here and there that were big on his own but just a couple. Most were smashes that went to the right spots.
But the Nats weren't catching a huge mistake either. Grienke was doing great keeping the Nats off balance and was making things easy for Hinch. So the Nats needed to win against good performances. And they did. Rendon hit a pitch out, but it was the pitch, pretty much, that Greinke wanted to throw. Look at the replay and it might have been a couple inches more in the middle but he wanted an in the strike zone changeup and he threw it and Rendon didn't get crossed up. He hit it out. Then Soto after catching a break on what should have been trike one, and swinging at a curve out of the strike zone to even the count watched four almost identical pitches to the second one go by. He wasn't going to bite. Hinch probably made the wrong move here. Whether you believe it as pulling Greinke, with his low count and effectiveness, or you believe it wasn't going to Smith/Osuna/Cole instead of Harris he did something wrong. BUT Harris didn't. He made the pitch he wanted. It was a pitch that you normally pull over for a DP if you don't guess, and you line into RF if you do. But hit a homer? No. You don't do that unless you do everything right. Kendrick did.
After this the game reset to the normal MO. Harris pitched Cabrera into the shift (mistake) and Cabrera took what he gave him. Hinch panicked and pulled him for Osuna and who threw 12 pitches and forced Hinch to make a bigger mistake - keeping Osuna in the game. He almost got out of it but then came the middle of the line-up again. Soto got a hit. Game over. All while Corbin and Hudson hut the Astros down.
The Nats had to get as lucky as they ever had been to survive what should have been a brief and brutal Max start. They had to be as good as they could be to work a Greinke on his game and get him out and then take the best the Astros could give them (at least on that pitch) and win the game. They did both and now they are Champions
Oh wow - spent a lot more time on that than I thought. SPEED RUSH
Was Stras' posteseason best ever? - No!
Was the Nats post-season the most unbelievable ever? - Maybe! It's harder than you think to make that judgement! But I'd guess it's in the Top 5 of the multi-round playoff time frame (50 years) for sure.
What about postseason stats in general? - Way too influenced by appearances to be anything but trivia.
Strasburg opting out - He should. He can get more. (I think he stays)
Rendon to FA - He's looking for Arenando + and he might get it (I think he leaves)
Celebration - Honest take - feels like a Caps imitation. But a completely deserved one. Every team should do this.
White House stuff - Hoo boy. Just get in and get out. Don't do that.
I think that's all the big stuff. I can expound on anything but I think the Rendon/Stras stuff is of the most immediate interest.
*Looking back it's amazing how many of these suboptimal choices came against the middle of the Nats lineup. Rather than treat Rendon/Soto as the two MVP type of terrible problem to get past, teams treated them as something they could get by. They could not.
**The one win - yes ONE WIN that didn't follow this for the vast chunk of the game was the G1 win over the Dodgers. The Nats just scored on Kershaw and won the game early. The G2 blowout against the Astros was going to follow this but after exploding it - it didn't need to and the other arms got a chance to get in. Yes, I know Rainey was used for like an inning here in these games.
Game 7
I talked about before that usually to win in the playoffs you have to be lucky and good. In game 7 the Nats were as lucky as they ever were and as good too.
The Nats MO in the WC, NLDS, and WS had been fairly simple. Have the starter go as long as possible so you only have to use Doolitte, Hudson, and the starter on off-day to close it out. On the other side, wait until the other guys make a mistake and CRUSH them for it. Hader early after Pomeranz was cruising? CRUSH. Urias faces Rendon with a open base then sticks around after Soto to face Kendrick? CRUSH. Kershaw faces Rendon, nobody goes out to settle him? CRUSH. Pull crusing Maeda use Joe Kelly... didn't crush! Use Joe Kelly for second inning DESTROY. Let Cole face Soto after a walk and two single in the inning? SOTO CRUSH. Try to get Verlander his win, then replace him with Pressly - like their 4th best reliever, don't pull Pressly after giving up lead? CRUSH. Try again to get a gassed Verlander with WS win CRUSH. * That's like seriously almost all their playoff wins in these series.**
Game 7 was different. First off the pitching performance wasn't good. There had been wobbles in the past in the wins. Early inning tests that were either passed or lucked out of before the starter settled down and carried the team as long as they needed. Max didn't wobble. Max was kind of bad. We talk about Max having a gutty performance but it wasn't as gutty as we normally describe it. Usually when we say "gutty" we mean a guy not having it but still pitching in a way that gets the other team to do what he wants. But Max didn't do that. Max threw a whole lot of batting practice fastballs and got very very lucky. Just the two out hits : Second inning - line drive... right at Soto. Third inning - 400 ft fly ball... to the deepest part of the park. Fourth inning - line drive... right at Robles. Any one of those could have broken the game open. Hell he almost got it again in the 5th where Correa smashed it but a full extension Rendon came inches from snagging it. He did get a couple outs here and there that were big on his own but just a couple. Most were smashes that went to the right spots.
But the Nats weren't catching a huge mistake either. Grienke was doing great keeping the Nats off balance and was making things easy for Hinch. So the Nats needed to win against good performances. And they did. Rendon hit a pitch out, but it was the pitch, pretty much, that Greinke wanted to throw. Look at the replay and it might have been a couple inches more in the middle but he wanted an in the strike zone changeup and he threw it and Rendon didn't get crossed up. He hit it out. Then Soto after catching a break on what should have been trike one, and swinging at a curve out of the strike zone to even the count watched four almost identical pitches to the second one go by. He wasn't going to bite. Hinch probably made the wrong move here. Whether you believe it as pulling Greinke, with his low count and effectiveness, or you believe it wasn't going to Smith/Osuna/Cole instead of Harris he did something wrong. BUT Harris didn't. He made the pitch he wanted. It was a pitch that you normally pull over for a DP if you don't guess, and you line into RF if you do. But hit a homer? No. You don't do that unless you do everything right. Kendrick did.
After this the game reset to the normal MO. Harris pitched Cabrera into the shift (mistake) and Cabrera took what he gave him. Hinch panicked and pulled him for Osuna and who threw 12 pitches and forced Hinch to make a bigger mistake - keeping Osuna in the game. He almost got out of it but then came the middle of the line-up again. Soto got a hit. Game over. All while Corbin and Hudson hut the Astros down.
The Nats had to get as lucky as they ever had been to survive what should have been a brief and brutal Max start. They had to be as good as they could be to work a Greinke on his game and get him out and then take the best the Astros could give them (at least on that pitch) and win the game. They did both and now they are Champions
Oh wow - spent a lot more time on that than I thought. SPEED RUSH
Was Stras' posteseason best ever? - No!
Was the Nats post-season the most unbelievable ever? - Maybe! It's harder than you think to make that judgement! But I'd guess it's in the Top 5 of the multi-round playoff time frame (50 years) for sure.
What about postseason stats in general? - Way too influenced by appearances to be anything but trivia.
Strasburg opting out - He should. He can get more. (I think he stays)
Rendon to FA - He's looking for Arenando + and he might get it (I think he leaves)
Celebration - Honest take - feels like a Caps imitation. But a completely deserved one. Every team should do this.
White House stuff - Hoo boy. Just get in and get out. Don't do that.
I think that's all the big stuff. I can expound on anything but I think the Rendon/Stras stuff is of the most immediate interest.
*Looking back it's amazing how many of these suboptimal choices came against the middle of the Nats lineup. Rather than treat Rendon/Soto as the two MVP type of terrible problem to get past, teams treated them as something they could get by. They could not.
**The one win - yes ONE WIN that didn't follow this for the vast chunk of the game was the G1 win over the Dodgers. The Nats just scored on Kershaw and won the game early. The G2 blowout against the Astros was going to follow this but after exploding it - it didn't need to and the other arms got a chance to get in. Yes, I know Rainey was used for like an inning here in these games.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Champs!
Enjoy yourselves. I'm going to bed!
Update : You are still champs! And will be for at least a year or forever depending on how you want to look at it.
Anyway just wanted to let you know I won't be posting today and tomorrow (and if you follow me on Twitter I probably won't be on there much) Why? Well because after you win it all there's a tendency to mythologize what just happened. For the Nats that means making a legit great story into The Greatest Story Ever Told. That doesn't mesh with a contrarian soulless automaton. I'll just want to pick out the things said that are wrong. I can think of a few dozen already. And that's just in Boz's column!
But I imagine no one wants this when they are trying to celebrate and there's all off-season to do such things so enjoy the next few days, go to the parade if you can and I'll see you... well probably Monday.
Update : You are still champs! And will be for at least a year or forever depending on how you want to look at it.
Anyway just wanted to let you know I won't be posting today and tomorrow (and if you follow me on Twitter I probably won't be on there much) Why? Well because after you win it all there's a tendency to mythologize what just happened. For the Nats that means making a legit great story into The Greatest Story Ever Told. That doesn't mesh with a contrarian soulless automaton. I'll just want to pick out the things said that are wrong. I can think of a few dozen already. And that's just in Boz's column!
But I imagine no one wants this when they are trying to celebrate and there's all off-season to do such things so enjoy the next few days, go to the parade if you can and I'll see you... well probably Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)