Qualifying Offers went out on Friday. For the few unfamiliar with the concept, these are one-year deals you can make to free agents where if they reject you get a draft pick as compensation. The QO number is set fairly high. this year it is 15.8 million, and because of that we end up with a situation where almost no one offered accepts the deal. If you are good enough to be offered a QO, you are good enough to make more in free agency. You reject. If you aren't good enough to make more in FA, the team doesn't want to pay you 15.8 million. There are borderline cases though and they often deal with injury risk.
The Nats offered to Jordan Zimmermann. Easy call. He's been worth more than that for several years and on the open pitchers market will likely easily surpass that annual value. In fact he should make around 20 million a year not just for one season but for something like 6 years. You offer. He'll reject.
The Nats offered to Ian Desmond. Another fairly easy call. Ian had an poor year and wasn't worth 15.8 million this year but has been in the recent past and the SS FA market is not strong. So if you want to get someone of Ian's talent on the Nats next year through free agency it would cost at least 15.8 miilion. You offer. He may or may not beat that salary annually but he should be relatively close and get offered a multi-year deal. For him there's really no reason to accept this when there could be 4/52 out there, and that's a very pessimistic number. (What's optimistic? 6/102)
Doug Fister is another easy call, at least to me. He wasn't worth 15.8 million next year and frankly 2014 was a mirage. You only offer if you are sure he won't accept and I don't see how you could be. Fister is likely to only get offered two types of contracts. The first would be challenge deals, one-year deals that maybe have team option years and incentives, that are a little under market. The team is gambling that it might get a steal for a year on the player. The player gambles they might be able to turn it around and get a long term deal later. For Fister I don't see a better challenge deal out there than re-upping with the Nats for nearly 16 million. It'll be more money for likely a more talented team, then he could get on the FA market. The other type would be a way under value short mutli-year deal. 3/27, 2/22 something where the team is accepting risk on what could be useless years beyond the first and funneling into a lower annual salary. If you can make 16 this year though and think you can turn it into a long term deal why accept a deal like that? You don't. So if I'm Fister I'm taking the QO if the Nats offer and nobody here wants that. You don't offer.
Denard Span is the injury risk tough call. When healthy, even this year, he's been very good. It's easy to see that if he plays a full year he'd be worth the money. However he has dealt with at least three separate injuries in the past year and has a concussion history to boot. It's more than fair to downgrade his value based on these risks. However even if the Nats don't want to pay Span 15.8 million for next year, they do have to think about the other side. Would Span accept that deal? Unlike Fister, who was awful last year and had most stats guys expecting that crash if not sooner than later, Span was great. He hit like he did in 2014 when he was pushed as a MVP-vote worthy player. Even with the injuries it is very likely he has a multi-year deal out there waiting for him. It won't likely be the "maybe last one of my career" one that he probably was hoping for but 3/4 years at 10-15 million? That's possible. Do you take say 4 million more in the hopes of turning it all around? I don't. I go for it. So if I were the Nats I'd have offered Span a QO. It's likely he rejects and if he accepts, for one year the risk is worth it.
What does it say that the Nats didn't offer the deal to Span? Well my guess would be they have an idea of the budget for the team without Span and don't want him to accept and mess that up and/or they feel his health is too big a risk to take a gamble on. On the latter they surely know more than me (or you). On the former that could be good or bad. It does sound cheap yes, and that's how I'd lean in thinking about it, but it could also mean they know exactly where they want to spend their money. It's a little presumptuous that they could hit all their marks and a little sad they don't have flexiblity to absorb Span if he accepts (not that 10 million isn't alot but it'd be nice if the Nats could gamble with what hoepfully amounts to less than 7 percent of their payroll) but it's not that problematic.
I was only going to be worried if they didn't offer any QOs. That would mean they couldn't even deal with ZNN, who is totally worth the money, accepting. That's very worrisome. But it didn't happen. The Nats did pretty much what they should have so let's move on.
Monday, November 09, 2015
Friday, November 06, 2015
Last year starting pitching discussion : revisited
Starting Pitching
Take : The 2014 staff was the best staff in the majors. Everyone could return, so why wouldn't you return everyone? Barring injury, it will be at least very good again. The depth was a little questionable though with AJ Cole or Blake Treinen seemingly most likely to get spot starts.
2015 Reality :We fooled ourselves.
While the rotation was great in 2014, the likelihood was that it would regress to "merely" very good in 2015. There were questions like: Was Roark a one-season wonder? Would Fister continue to pitch like that and if so, could his luck hold up? Would Gio continue to slide? Would the Nats keep their amazing health? I think, to start the off-season, we kind of understood with that many questions, and just the general variability that comes with any baseball season, the chances of them being great again were slim.
Then Max Scherzer was brought in.
Suddenly, it was like his signing somehow answered all those questions positively. It was like there was no chance the pitching staff could be anything less than great. Except of course it could. First off Max wouldn't replace the likely biggest problem in the Nats rotation, Doug Fister, because Fister had effectively camouflaged his issues. He had the best ERA on the team! You can't take that guy out even if everything shouted that pitching like that (no Ks, just good, not great, at keeping hits or homers down) and getting those results was a complete fluke. Instead, Scherzer would replace Roark. Upgrading from a very solid 2/3 season to an ace is not the same as kicking out a #5 type. The impact would be felt, but it wouldn't be great.
Sure Roark to the pen would help answer the depth issue, but if the Nats needed to use depth that meant there were actually more questions to answer. Which pitcher would be getting replaced? If it was Max, ZNN or Stras then Roark would probably not be an upgrade. Was it injury or performance? If it was performance, how long would it take a pitcher to fail and how bad would he have to be before Roark would be used? How long would it take Roark to get his groove back? All valid questions but we went along assuming if someone goes down, the Nats would just stick in Roark and he'd be very good.
Seduced by the idea of a historic rotation things we'd normally assume unlikely to be repeated upon individual review; the career-type season by ZNN, the fluke season by Fister, the career-type season by Scherzer; we acted as if were near certainties. But only Strasburg was still at an age where improvement could be reasonably expected. Given the make-up of the rotation and the complete lack of under-performance in 2014, a bet on two or three of the rotation pitching noticeably worse in 2015 was where the smart money would be. That's even before factoring in that it was likely one or two would have some sort of injury troubles. The historic rotation was based on everyone hitting their best performance of the last couple years. What was far more likely was a season where everyone hit their expectations and then that total should probably have been adjusted down 10% or so for the injury possibilities.
You do that calculation and what do you have? You still have a rotation that's good enough to be Top 5 ish in the majors, but isn't team carrying. And you know what? By hook or by crook, that is pretty much where the Nats ended up this year. Despite how it looked during the season the pitching staff was fine. It was better than fine. It was almost exactly where it should have been expected to be. Gio hit his mark. Scherzer surpassed his. Zimmermann underperformed a little. Fister would get injured but would get replaced by Ross who would pitch very well. Strasburg would have half a terrible season and half a remarkable one. Maybe the rotation was a tick under where it should have been but just a tick.
The truth is the rotation did what it should have done. The problem wasn't with the rotation it was with our expectations. We kept saying "Last year's rotation did X" but "last year's rotation" wasn't a reasonable comparison to start out against. Last year's rotation was a fluke of 3 unlikely events coming together at once (ZNN's and Roark's probable career seasons and Fister's run of luck) combined with nothing going wrong at all with the other 2 starters AND near perfect health. Last year the Nats starting pitching drew a straight flush and then we complained that this year's rotation wasn't holding a Royal one.
What does this mean going forward? Well it means we need to be a bit more careful with expectations on the aggregate and we need to be a bit more careful when expecting great seasons to be repeated. That means that we have to temper the expectations for Scherzer and BRYCE. A very good Max and a very good Bryce are more reasonable expectations and the team needs to consider that the baseline when planning 2015. Historic seasons by players or teams are singular events. Planning on singular events to happen again is what fools do and in 2015 we were fools.
Take : The 2014 staff was the best staff in the majors. Everyone could return, so why wouldn't you return everyone? Barring injury, it will be at least very good again. The depth was a little questionable though with AJ Cole or Blake Treinen seemingly most likely to get spot starts.
2015 Reality :We fooled ourselves.
While the rotation was great in 2014, the likelihood was that it would regress to "merely" very good in 2015. There were questions like: Was Roark a one-season wonder? Would Fister continue to pitch like that and if so, could his luck hold up? Would Gio continue to slide? Would the Nats keep their amazing health? I think, to start the off-season, we kind of understood with that many questions, and just the general variability that comes with any baseball season, the chances of them being great again were slim.
Then Max Scherzer was brought in.
Suddenly, it was like his signing somehow answered all those questions positively. It was like there was no chance the pitching staff could be anything less than great. Except of course it could. First off Max wouldn't replace the likely biggest problem in the Nats rotation, Doug Fister, because Fister had effectively camouflaged his issues. He had the best ERA on the team! You can't take that guy out even if everything shouted that pitching like that (no Ks, just good, not great, at keeping hits or homers down) and getting those results was a complete fluke. Instead, Scherzer would replace Roark. Upgrading from a very solid 2/3 season to an ace is not the same as kicking out a #5 type. The impact would be felt, but it wouldn't be great.
Sure Roark to the pen would help answer the depth issue, but if the Nats needed to use depth that meant there were actually more questions to answer. Which pitcher would be getting replaced? If it was Max, ZNN or Stras then Roark would probably not be an upgrade. Was it injury or performance? If it was performance, how long would it take a pitcher to fail and how bad would he have to be before Roark would be used? How long would it take Roark to get his groove back? All valid questions but we went along assuming if someone goes down, the Nats would just stick in Roark and he'd be very good.
Seduced by the idea of a historic rotation things we'd normally assume unlikely to be repeated upon individual review; the career-type season by ZNN, the fluke season by Fister, the career-type season by Scherzer; we acted as if were near certainties. But only Strasburg was still at an age where improvement could be reasonably expected. Given the make-up of the rotation and the complete lack of under-performance in 2014, a bet on two or three of the rotation pitching noticeably worse in 2015 was where the smart money would be. That's even before factoring in that it was likely one or two would have some sort of injury troubles. The historic rotation was based on everyone hitting their best performance of the last couple years. What was far more likely was a season where everyone hit their expectations and then that total should probably have been adjusted down 10% or so for the injury possibilities.
You do that calculation and what do you have? You still have a rotation that's good enough to be Top 5 ish in the majors, but isn't team carrying. And you know what? By hook or by crook, that is pretty much where the Nats ended up this year. Despite how it looked during the season the pitching staff was fine. It was better than fine. It was almost exactly where it should have been expected to be. Gio hit his mark. Scherzer surpassed his. Zimmermann underperformed a little. Fister would get injured but would get replaced by Ross who would pitch very well. Strasburg would have half a terrible season and half a remarkable one. Maybe the rotation was a tick under where it should have been but just a tick.
The truth is the rotation did what it should have done. The problem wasn't with the rotation it was with our expectations. We kept saying "Last year's rotation did X" but "last year's rotation" wasn't a reasonable comparison to start out against. Last year's rotation was a fluke of 3 unlikely events coming together at once (ZNN's and Roark's probable career seasons and Fister's run of luck) combined with nothing going wrong at all with the other 2 starters AND near perfect health. Last year the Nats starting pitching drew a straight flush and then we complained that this year's rotation wasn't holding a Royal one.
What does this mean going forward? Well it means we need to be a bit more careful with expectations on the aggregate and we need to be a bit more careful when expecting great seasons to be repeated. That means that we have to temper the expectations for Scherzer and BRYCE. A very good Max and a very good Bryce are more reasonable expectations and the team needs to consider that the baseline when planning 2015. Historic seasons by players or teams are singular events. Planning on singular events to happen again is what fools do and in 2015 we were fools.
Thursday, November 05, 2015
Offseason Position Discussion : Starting Pitching
Presumed Plan : Max Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg, and Gio Gonzalez return to the rotation. Joe Ross and Tanner Roark take the place of the departing Jordan Zimmermann and Doug Fister.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Doug Fister flamed out and given his age there really isn't a reason to try to bring him back. They will probably toss a QO at Jordan Zimmermann, but he stands to make a lot of money on the FA market and the Nats aren't looking to make that sort of investment on ZNN. They've already put out there that they think TJ arms are ticking time bombs and won't give ZNN the years he probably wants.
Outside of an unfortunately ill-timed off month, Scherzer was arguably the best pitcher in the NL in a year filled with great pitching. He's in.
After returning from injury Strasburg was better than anyone not named Jake Arrieta to end the year. He's in.
Gio? He's fine. He put up another year of slightly better than average pitching, he's left-handed (the only one for the Nats), and he has a reasonable contract. He's in.
Joe Ross assumed a role in the starting rotation after Doug Fister never got over his issues and he performed well above expectations to start. Later issues could be linked to fatigue as Ross pushed past his old high of ~120 IP to 150.
Tanner Roark had pitched wonderfully in 2014 as a starter, putting up a great ERA and earning a spot in the 2015 rotation until Scherzer was signed. While he did have some rough outings in 2015 as a starter most attribute that to having to move from the pen to starter and back. When finally given a good number of starts in a row to end the year it looked like Roark was settling back into his groove nicely.
The Nats organizational depth isn't spectacular. Giolito will be in the majors soon, but had to adjust to AA last year and will probably be given time to dominate there and adjust to AAA before being brought up to the majors. 2016 is possible but I think 2017 is more likely. Reynaldo Lopez, who the Nats were high on before last year, had an off year and is likely to start 2016 in AA with some question marks on him. AJ Cole, who the Nats thought may slide into a rotation role did not fare well at the major league level and is not enough of a prospect to force any of the supposed rotation out. Austin Voth and Austin Williams are interesting arms to watch in 2016 but neither are ready now. Note that these are all RH. The Nats LHSP depth is non-existant.
Problems with Presumed Plan : It's hard to find a fault with Scherzer. You do have to question why that bad month was SO bad. His ERA was 2.09 after his July 19th start. Then is his next 9 starts his ERA was 5.54 (over 6 in August). Then he'd finish the year with 5 starts at a 1.63 ERA. If it was fatigue then does a stubborn Max and an old-school Dusty lead to more of that? Still it's not like you don't use him.
Strasburg is like the Nats typical offensive player. "If he's healthy" he's good. But we saw what he was like pitching when he wasn't healthy (ERA at 6.50 after first 9 starts).
Gio was perfectly fine but he continues to trend in the wrong direction. His WHIP was the highest since his rookie year (1.423) and he was completely inconsistent. Given his age and the innings on the arm you have to believe that if he does find consistency it won't be at "consistently good".
Maybe Joe Ross got tired. Or maybe the league caught up with Joe Ross a rookie who was liked but never seen as an elite prospect. One has to worry too that after pitching 120 innings in 2013 and 2014 that in 2015 he pretty much started having issues right at that 120 inning mark. A guy should be able to stretch further each year, not hit a wall. Also his BABIP was rather low - luck makes more sense than the kid pitching like a crafty veteran in his first season in the majors. Ross is more of an unknown than Nats fans are probably thinking.
Roark wasn't good starting in 2015. What more do you need than that to cast doubt on him starting in 2016? Forget starting, he didn't pitch well overall. WHIP up, Ks down, walks up, homers up. That may seem unusual but those stats last year were far more in line with the guy that the Nats had seen in their minors up until his 2013 breakthrough. Maybe the Nats caught lightning in a bottle with the guy and now that is gone.
My take : Scherzer you run with, of course. I would keep an eye out on that hard use -> bad performance pattern that emerged but that doesn't mean I would not have him throw tough innings next year. In fact I might encourage it because we need to know if the guy just had a bad month or has aged into a place where he can't go 8+ over and over or else he'll need rest. Anyway you slice it though, we're nitpicking. He's a true #1.
Strasburg is a gamble because of his 2015 injuries but what are you going to do? Having a rotation with only one big injury risk is a victory in itself. He's good, he's been good for a while. He starts.
Gio... I'm worried about Gio, I'll admit. The Cy Young vote days are long since gone and they aren't ever coming back. Last year he suddenly became a GB pitcher which was effective but was also very weird after multiple season of success not being one. That change helped in large part because it helped his homers stay down but otherwise he was hit pretty hard and it showed in the number of hits he gave up (9.3 per 9 - most since 2009). It's like he's trying to transition to the second half of his career, where he's a "crafty lefty" but we don't know if he has what it takes. For various reasons you do stay with Gio but next year is going to be telling. Do the GBs stay down? Does he still get hit hard? Do the Ks drop some more? Last year was a bit of a tight rope season and 2016 will either show that he knows how to walk it, or he'll fall off.
I'll admit you guys like Ross way more than me. That BABIP, that HR rate, that K rate. It's as if you said "What's the best possible numbers Ross can hit" and then he hit them. But he did it in basically only 7-10 starts so that screams "caution" to me. A lot of his early success came from the fact that he started his time here striking out more guys than he ever did in the minors. That doesn't happen, especially from a guy who had issues with that starting out in the minors. Once it resolved to a more expected level the hits and runs came easier. I do also worry about that 120 IP thing. Does his arm have what it takes? Then again 120 IP in the minors is not 120 IP in the majors. More stress could mean an earlier tiring than we thought. We'll just have to see - 120 IP is around the All-Star break so he should have a nice long break right when he might need it most. All this makes it sound like I think he'll be bad. I don't but I think for 2016 a true #4 type pitcher is more likely than the #2 esque you saw to start. Which is fine! Because he will be a #4!
You have to write off 2015 for Roark because of the bouncing back and forth. Yes everything got worse. But it really doesn't chnage anything that you would have thought if Roark was a starter going into 2015. He did it for one year. He has to prove he can do it again. The Nats don't have a better fifth option and given that his 2014 was so good he deserves a shot to see if he can replicate it. Can he? I don't know. I doubt he can be that good. But good enough to hold a rotation spot is all that the Nats need here.
The problem with the Nats rotation in 2015 wasn't that it wasn't good. It was, even with the injuries and failures. The problem was that it was supposed to be great. That it wasn't and 2016's rotation doesn't have that same potential. Still if Strasburg is healthy all year, it could be better than 2015, with an unstoppable 1-2 at the top. Ross and Roark both represent good bets to make with your last rotation spots. There isn't really a problem here outside of the depth. Rotations almost always suffer injuries and the Nats don't have a strong Day 1 option for filling in. That will probably resolve in the first few months; Cole or Voth will do well or someone in AAA/AA will look good enough to deserve a fill-in shot, but if the Nats suffer injuries before Opening Day they could be in trouble. I'd love to see them grab a couple of on their way out veteran starters on minor league / cheap deals for org depth.
Outside the Box Suggestion : The Nats need to maximize the time Giolito and Bryce Harper are together on the major league level. If you really believe in Giolito you put him in the majors now and try to give them 3 years together. If he is really awesome you give yourself the potential that you had last year - a great rotation. But we don't stop there. AJ Cole should get a long extended trial in the majors now and Austin Voth shouldn't be far behind. How do you make room? First, you don't trade Strasburg. He gives the team the best chance of winning in 2016 by far. What you do is you make Roark a back of the pen reliever. You tell him the Nats need him there, that's his new role, and if he balks you trade him for an effective 8th inning guy. You can get that for him given the years left under control. Second, you trade Gio. He's effective, lefty and the contract is good so he has value. At the same time he's only ok and why settle for that? Trade him for relief help too.
Sure this could blow up in your face, but the Nats have a Bryce window to deal with. We've talked about how hard it is to improve a team with good players because great players are rare and cost so much. Bryce is a great player NOW and costs relative peanuts. The Nats need to take advantage of these 3 years where he's sure to be here and cheap. One way is spending a lot of money - go out and get a Price/Greinke or trade for a guy at the end of his deal (there really is no one though) and do it that way. Bet on Strasburg. That doesn't seem likely to me. So we go the other way. Bet on Giolito. Try to find a great young rotation with what you have. By trying Giolito and Cole and getting Ross's second year and probably seeing some of Voth or Lopez, you'll have a better idea of if NEXT offseason you need that one more special starter or not.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Doug Fister flamed out and given his age there really isn't a reason to try to bring him back. They will probably toss a QO at Jordan Zimmermann, but he stands to make a lot of money on the FA market and the Nats aren't looking to make that sort of investment on ZNN. They've already put out there that they think TJ arms are ticking time bombs and won't give ZNN the years he probably wants.
Outside of an unfortunately ill-timed off month, Scherzer was arguably the best pitcher in the NL in a year filled with great pitching. He's in.
After returning from injury Strasburg was better than anyone not named Jake Arrieta to end the year. He's in.
Gio? He's fine. He put up another year of slightly better than average pitching, he's left-handed (the only one for the Nats), and he has a reasonable contract. He's in.
Joe Ross assumed a role in the starting rotation after Doug Fister never got over his issues and he performed well above expectations to start. Later issues could be linked to fatigue as Ross pushed past his old high of ~120 IP to 150.
Tanner Roark had pitched wonderfully in 2014 as a starter, putting up a great ERA and earning a spot in the 2015 rotation until Scherzer was signed. While he did have some rough outings in 2015 as a starter most attribute that to having to move from the pen to starter and back. When finally given a good number of starts in a row to end the year it looked like Roark was settling back into his groove nicely.
The Nats organizational depth isn't spectacular. Giolito will be in the majors soon, but had to adjust to AA last year and will probably be given time to dominate there and adjust to AAA before being brought up to the majors. 2016 is possible but I think 2017 is more likely. Reynaldo Lopez, who the Nats were high on before last year, had an off year and is likely to start 2016 in AA with some question marks on him. AJ Cole, who the Nats thought may slide into a rotation role did not fare well at the major league level and is not enough of a prospect to force any of the supposed rotation out. Austin Voth and Austin Williams are interesting arms to watch in 2016 but neither are ready now. Note that these are all RH. The Nats LHSP depth is non-existant.
Problems with Presumed Plan : It's hard to find a fault with Scherzer. You do have to question why that bad month was SO bad. His ERA was 2.09 after his July 19th start. Then is his next 9 starts his ERA was 5.54 (over 6 in August). Then he'd finish the year with 5 starts at a 1.63 ERA. If it was fatigue then does a stubborn Max and an old-school Dusty lead to more of that? Still it's not like you don't use him.
Strasburg is like the Nats typical offensive player. "If he's healthy" he's good. But we saw what he was like pitching when he wasn't healthy (ERA at 6.50 after first 9 starts).
Gio was perfectly fine but he continues to trend in the wrong direction. His WHIP was the highest since his rookie year (1.423) and he was completely inconsistent. Given his age and the innings on the arm you have to believe that if he does find consistency it won't be at "consistently good".
Maybe Joe Ross got tired. Or maybe the league caught up with Joe Ross a rookie who was liked but never seen as an elite prospect. One has to worry too that after pitching 120 innings in 2013 and 2014 that in 2015 he pretty much started having issues right at that 120 inning mark. A guy should be able to stretch further each year, not hit a wall. Also his BABIP was rather low - luck makes more sense than the kid pitching like a crafty veteran in his first season in the majors. Ross is more of an unknown than Nats fans are probably thinking.
Roark wasn't good starting in 2015. What more do you need than that to cast doubt on him starting in 2016? Forget starting, he didn't pitch well overall. WHIP up, Ks down, walks up, homers up. That may seem unusual but those stats last year were far more in line with the guy that the Nats had seen in their minors up until his 2013 breakthrough. Maybe the Nats caught lightning in a bottle with the guy and now that is gone.
My take : Scherzer you run with, of course. I would keep an eye out on that hard use -> bad performance pattern that emerged but that doesn't mean I would not have him throw tough innings next year. In fact I might encourage it because we need to know if the guy just had a bad month or has aged into a place where he can't go 8+ over and over or else he'll need rest. Anyway you slice it though, we're nitpicking. He's a true #1.
Strasburg is a gamble because of his 2015 injuries but what are you going to do? Having a rotation with only one big injury risk is a victory in itself. He's good, he's been good for a while. He starts.
Gio... I'm worried about Gio, I'll admit. The Cy Young vote days are long since gone and they aren't ever coming back. Last year he suddenly became a GB pitcher which was effective but was also very weird after multiple season of success not being one. That change helped in large part because it helped his homers stay down but otherwise he was hit pretty hard and it showed in the number of hits he gave up (9.3 per 9 - most since 2009). It's like he's trying to transition to the second half of his career, where he's a "crafty lefty" but we don't know if he has what it takes. For various reasons you do stay with Gio but next year is going to be telling. Do the GBs stay down? Does he still get hit hard? Do the Ks drop some more? Last year was a bit of a tight rope season and 2016 will either show that he knows how to walk it, or he'll fall off.
I'll admit you guys like Ross way more than me. That BABIP, that HR rate, that K rate. It's as if you said "What's the best possible numbers Ross can hit" and then he hit them. But he did it in basically only 7-10 starts so that screams "caution" to me. A lot of his early success came from the fact that he started his time here striking out more guys than he ever did in the minors. That doesn't happen, especially from a guy who had issues with that starting out in the minors. Once it resolved to a more expected level the hits and runs came easier. I do also worry about that 120 IP thing. Does his arm have what it takes? Then again 120 IP in the minors is not 120 IP in the majors. More stress could mean an earlier tiring than we thought. We'll just have to see - 120 IP is around the All-Star break so he should have a nice long break right when he might need it most. All this makes it sound like I think he'll be bad. I don't but I think for 2016 a true #4 type pitcher is more likely than the #2 esque you saw to start. Which is fine! Because he will be a #4!
You have to write off 2015 for Roark because of the bouncing back and forth. Yes everything got worse. But it really doesn't chnage anything that you would have thought if Roark was a starter going into 2015. He did it for one year. He has to prove he can do it again. The Nats don't have a better fifth option and given that his 2014 was so good he deserves a shot to see if he can replicate it. Can he? I don't know. I doubt he can be that good. But good enough to hold a rotation spot is all that the Nats need here.
The problem with the Nats rotation in 2015 wasn't that it wasn't good. It was, even with the injuries and failures. The problem was that it was supposed to be great. That it wasn't and 2016's rotation doesn't have that same potential. Still if Strasburg is healthy all year, it could be better than 2015, with an unstoppable 1-2 at the top. Ross and Roark both represent good bets to make with your last rotation spots. There isn't really a problem here outside of the depth. Rotations almost always suffer injuries and the Nats don't have a strong Day 1 option for filling in. That will probably resolve in the first few months; Cole or Voth will do well or someone in AAA/AA will look good enough to deserve a fill-in shot, but if the Nats suffer injuries before Opening Day they could be in trouble. I'd love to see them grab a couple of on their way out veteran starters on minor league / cheap deals for org depth.
Outside the Box Suggestion : The Nats need to maximize the time Giolito and Bryce Harper are together on the major league level. If you really believe in Giolito you put him in the majors now and try to give them 3 years together. If he is really awesome you give yourself the potential that you had last year - a great rotation. But we don't stop there. AJ Cole should get a long extended trial in the majors now and Austin Voth shouldn't be far behind. How do you make room? First, you don't trade Strasburg. He gives the team the best chance of winning in 2016 by far. What you do is you make Roark a back of the pen reliever. You tell him the Nats need him there, that's his new role, and if he balks you trade him for an effective 8th inning guy. You can get that for him given the years left under control. Second, you trade Gio. He's effective, lefty and the contract is good so he has value. At the same time he's only ok and why settle for that? Trade him for relief help too.
Sure this could blow up in your face, but the Nats have a Bryce window to deal with. We've talked about how hard it is to improve a team with good players because great players are rare and cost so much. Bryce is a great player NOW and costs relative peanuts. The Nats need to take advantage of these 3 years where he's sure to be here and cheap. One way is spending a lot of money - go out and get a Price/Greinke or trade for a guy at the end of his deal (there really is no one though) and do it that way. Bet on Strasburg. That doesn't seem likely to me. So we go the other way. Bet on Giolito. Try to find a great young rotation with what you have. By trying Giolito and Cole and getting Ross's second year and probably seeing some of Voth or Lopez, you'll have a better idea of if NEXT offseason you need that one more special starter or not.
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
MASN ruling in plain speak
MASN ruling went against Nats. Here's a quick primer on the decision (from a non-legal expert)
Orioles said that the award (55-60 mill) should be vacated because :
In other words it wasn't enough that it looked like there may be bias with the lawyers. The ruling went through because the Orioles pointed that it looked like there may be bias and then baseball did nothing in the slightest to try to address that. It was that inaction that showed enough potential bias to vacate the ruling.
Orioles said that the award (55-60 mill) should be vacated because :
- MLB is a bunch of lying cheats!
- Arbiter went out of bounds to get that number! Bortz!
- MLB wasn't being fair!
- Process was against the O's from the start - see the MLB to Nats 25 million dollar loan!
- Process was against the O's from the start - the law firm involved represented everybody in there except the Orioles/MASN!
- Come on, man!
- No. Maybe they were wrong to not use Bortz, but that's ok as long as they seem to stick to the basic rules you agreed to, which they did.
- No. Seems adequately fair in terms of what they did procedurally which is the point here.
- Nah. MLB loaned the money to the Nats after you all knew what the award would be. It didn't cause the award to be high, it was because the award was high. Plus it's not like whatever the award was, the Nats couldn't pay back $25 million over the life of it.
- Now you got something.
In other words it wasn't enough that it looked like there may be bias with the lawyers. The ruling went through because the Orioles pointed that it looked like there may be bias and then baseball did nothing in the slightest to try to address that. It was that inaction that showed enough potential bias to vacate the ruling.
A conversation with myself about Dusty
Dusty? But he's history's greatest monster! He tore off Mark Prior's arm and used it to bludgeon Kerry Wood's arm!
Dusty's status as the Destroyer of Arms is overblown. Yes, he did ride the Cubs young starters hard but 2003's role in their demise has been overblown, he showed no strong tendency for abuse in his last managerial role, and it's not like the Nats would sit back and let him make Strasburg throw 160 pitches. I'm not worried about this.
Ok then. There are 3 things that Matt Williams did not seem good at. He wasn't good in the clubhouse, he didn't handle relief pitching well, and he didn't seem to win in crunch time. Is Dusty proven to be better at those things?
Clubhouse, yes. The vast majority of his former players loved him. He's a players coach.
What does that mean?
It means that he generally lets the players have a strong voice in how they handle their time outside of game time. For example, if a player doesn't want to take BP that day and can explain why, Dusty would be more inclined to let him skip it. This is in opposition to certain Big Marines. But Dusty is an "old-school" players coach, and before you ask that means his leniancy scales with veteran status and somewhat with skill. A rookie will be expected to toe the line in a very standard professional ballplayer manner. A veteran who is still performing will be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants.
Sounds like a decent way to manage. What's the downside?
In the clubhouse? It can rankle some rookies who expect a talent meritocracy to exist, and it can rankle some vets if other vets abuse the system : see Bonds/Kent in San Fran. In theory teams can get undisciplined but that really hasn't been a Dusty problem. He communicates well the need for professionalism on the field. So to answer your question - I doubt he loses the clubhouse.
Ok what about handling relief pitching?
If you liked Matt Williams PBN approach you'll love Dusty. Your closer will not pitch before the 9th (in Dusty's last year with the Reds, Chapman pitched 1.2 innings before the 9th). Your closer is so wedded to save situations, Dusty can fall into the trap of not working the closer in enough. He likes the idea of set-up men and 7th inning guys as well, but he's not so committed to these guys that they won't see work. On one hand this does kind of suck, but on the other hand, this is the world that was created and baseball bought into it. Almost all managers will act in a similar manner. Dusty is an less an extreme example then just a little bit more rigid than the norm, which is already very rigid. So to answer this question - no he doesn't handle relief pitching with any skill, but if we're talking about using your best pitchers in high leverage situations hardly any manager does.
And winning in close situations?
Middling - some may point to 2003 and note that the Cubs were this play or that play away from a World Series. That's nice, but the guy has managed for long enough that there is a body of work to look at and his isn't great. 1997 and 2000, two DS losses, with one game won in total. 2003 infamous team meltdown. 2010 swept in DS. 2012 lost DS. 2013 lost WC. In short, he's 0-1 in WC games, 2-4 in DS series, 1-1 in CS series and 0-1 in WS. His teams don't show any skill at coming from behind (3-3 when down in series) and have trouble putting teams away (3-10 in series clinching games, including two 3 games to 1 lead collapses in 2003 and 2012)
I didn't see any particular pattern late in seasons with collapses or rising to the occasion. I think the eternal optimist can look at these occurances and say he's probably average with some bad luck in short series where anything can happen. The pessimist points to 2 DS sweeps, those pretty bad records in the biggest of big games, and the overall record in general and sees a guy who maybe lacks the ability to give teams that final push they need.
Hmm and why should I be ok with him again?
Well the Nats were going to hire Bud Black whose record in the playoffs is a sterling 0-0. Dusty's teams win. Since 1997 he has had 5 losing seasons in 16 years, and two of those were his first two in Cincinnati when the team was turning around. Even better, in 10 of those 11 winning seasons the team won 88 games or more. He's not squeaking over .500. He's producing playoff caliber team after playoff caliber team. Sure if your goal is to win the World Series he might have trouble with that, but as the 2013 and 2015 Nationals can tell you - it's real hard to win the World Series if you don't get to the playoffs.
I'll take playoffs. So Dusty may not be the most forward thinking manager and can have issues in the playoffs, but he gets his teams to win. Any other things I should know?
When you say Dusty isn't forward thinking, the second most commonly cited issue is his problems with "clogging the bases". Basically Dusty was a successful aggressive player wants his teams to swing, not walk, just like he did. His teams generally rank low in walks. (easier to see on the non-Bonds teams). This hurts the offense a little bit as it takes a weapon away. However, the Nats aren't really a walking team themselves so it's already been established that if they hit they'll score, if they don't they won't. Dusty won't really make a dent in the Nats here unless he tries to change Bryce, but he didn't try to change Bonds so I assume he won't.
Because of his old-school "veterans have earned it" mentality, Dusty will give veteran players a 2nd and 3rd chance before going to young players. For the start of 2016 this isn't too much of an issue. Trea Turner is probably in AAA, leaving Michael Taylor as the only young guy out there. This may present a problem if Rizzo brings in a decent 5th OF like say Marlon Byrd. Then again if MAT isn't producing, it's doubtful after 2015 that legions will be clamoring to see more of him instead of a vet. It's more a worry for later in 2015 when we'll probably want Turner up and in the line-up and Dusty might be sticking with a failing Escobar or Espinosa.
Dusty is a player favorite but his style promotes a bunker mentality. We are a family, the rest of the world are outsiders who don't get it. Because he's media savvy this doesn't break down the relationship between the players and the media covering them daily. However, GMs, owners, and broadcasters related to the team have been fair game in the past, and he's not against using the fans as a villain either. If things are going well no one but the aggrieved will care about the petty squabbles. That does matter (it helped push Dusty out in San Fran and Cincinnati) but fans will take it. However, if things don't go well, it feels like things could go south pretty fast. One thing I've noticed in looking at Dusty articles over the past couple weeks is that he doesn't seem to be one to take blame. Expect it to be shifted somewhere.
Ugh. That's a lot of negatives! This isn't good!
Eh I don't know. You manage for a long time and you are going to pick up a lot of negatives. His strong point - that players seemingly love playing for him - is really strong. Just look at the reaction to his hiring or go back and read about his handling of Joey Votto when he was dealing with anxiety issues. There's good reason for why they feel the way they do and it translates to very good regular season performances. The other things are sub-optimal but we don't know how many games "lost" to strict bullpen management, veteran dependence, or walk avoidance are made up by the intangibles which he does appear to have. We also can't assume that the other guy, whoever it would be, would handle those things much differently. And the whole potential for it being a big messy end? Well if things are going badly that the Nats are missing the playoffs again by a bunch do you really care if the end was a calm, stoic, "everyone agrees this isn't working" end? It's better but it's not the point.
The playoff thing is a bit concerning and the Nats will have to deal with that if the time comes. Let's hope it does.
Focusing on the fact he might not be the best strategic manager misses the larger picture. Managing is more than just strategic decisions. It's motivating players, dealing with the press, getting guys out of slumps and keeping guys hot. It's dealing with people; extremely talented, likely egotistical, special people. Since we can't measure that*, we have to use other things we can measure as a proxy. The best proxy, in my opinion, is wins. Dusty gets wins.
*OK we could probably do a survey of players from every team and measure manager satisfaction but that's not going to happen
Dusty's status as the Destroyer of Arms is overblown. Yes, he did ride the Cubs young starters hard but 2003's role in their demise has been overblown, he showed no strong tendency for abuse in his last managerial role, and it's not like the Nats would sit back and let him make Strasburg throw 160 pitches. I'm not worried about this.
Ok then. There are 3 things that Matt Williams did not seem good at. He wasn't good in the clubhouse, he didn't handle relief pitching well, and he didn't seem to win in crunch time. Is Dusty proven to be better at those things?
Clubhouse, yes. The vast majority of his former players loved him. He's a players coach.
What does that mean?
It means that he generally lets the players have a strong voice in how they handle their time outside of game time. For example, if a player doesn't want to take BP that day and can explain why, Dusty would be more inclined to let him skip it. This is in opposition to certain Big Marines. But Dusty is an "old-school" players coach, and before you ask that means his leniancy scales with veteran status and somewhat with skill. A rookie will be expected to toe the line in a very standard professional ballplayer manner. A veteran who is still performing will be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants.
Sounds like a decent way to manage. What's the downside?
In the clubhouse? It can rankle some rookies who expect a talent meritocracy to exist, and it can rankle some vets if other vets abuse the system : see Bonds/Kent in San Fran. In theory teams can get undisciplined but that really hasn't been a Dusty problem. He communicates well the need for professionalism on the field. So to answer your question - I doubt he loses the clubhouse.
Ok what about handling relief pitching?
If you liked Matt Williams PBN approach you'll love Dusty. Your closer will not pitch before the 9th (in Dusty's last year with the Reds, Chapman pitched 1.2 innings before the 9th). Your closer is so wedded to save situations, Dusty can fall into the trap of not working the closer in enough. He likes the idea of set-up men and 7th inning guys as well, but he's not so committed to these guys that they won't see work. On one hand this does kind of suck, but on the other hand, this is the world that was created and baseball bought into it. Almost all managers will act in a similar manner. Dusty is an less an extreme example then just a little bit more rigid than the norm, which is already very rigid. So to answer this question - no he doesn't handle relief pitching with any skill, but if we're talking about using your best pitchers in high leverage situations hardly any manager does.
And winning in close situations?
Middling - some may point to 2003 and note that the Cubs were this play or that play away from a World Series. That's nice, but the guy has managed for long enough that there is a body of work to look at and his isn't great. 1997 and 2000, two DS losses, with one game won in total. 2003 infamous team meltdown. 2010 swept in DS. 2012 lost DS. 2013 lost WC. In short, he's 0-1 in WC games, 2-4 in DS series, 1-1 in CS series and 0-1 in WS. His teams don't show any skill at coming from behind (3-3 when down in series) and have trouble putting teams away (3-10 in series clinching games, including two 3 games to 1 lead collapses in 2003 and 2012)
I didn't see any particular pattern late in seasons with collapses or rising to the occasion. I think the eternal optimist can look at these occurances and say he's probably average with some bad luck in short series where anything can happen. The pessimist points to 2 DS sweeps, those pretty bad records in the biggest of big games, and the overall record in general and sees a guy who maybe lacks the ability to give teams that final push they need.
Hmm and why should I be ok with him again?
Well the Nats were going to hire Bud Black whose record in the playoffs is a sterling 0-0. Dusty's teams win. Since 1997 he has had 5 losing seasons in 16 years, and two of those were his first two in Cincinnati when the team was turning around. Even better, in 10 of those 11 winning seasons the team won 88 games or more. He's not squeaking over .500. He's producing playoff caliber team after playoff caliber team. Sure if your goal is to win the World Series he might have trouble with that, but as the 2013 and 2015 Nationals can tell you - it's real hard to win the World Series if you don't get to the playoffs.
I'll take playoffs. So Dusty may not be the most forward thinking manager and can have issues in the playoffs, but he gets his teams to win. Any other things I should know?
When you say Dusty isn't forward thinking, the second most commonly cited issue is his problems with "clogging the bases". Basically Dusty was a successful aggressive player wants his teams to swing, not walk, just like he did. His teams generally rank low in walks. (easier to see on the non-Bonds teams). This hurts the offense a little bit as it takes a weapon away. However, the Nats aren't really a walking team themselves so it's already been established that if they hit they'll score, if they don't they won't. Dusty won't really make a dent in the Nats here unless he tries to change Bryce, but he didn't try to change Bonds so I assume he won't.
Because of his old-school "veterans have earned it" mentality, Dusty will give veteran players a 2nd and 3rd chance before going to young players. For the start of 2016 this isn't too much of an issue. Trea Turner is probably in AAA, leaving Michael Taylor as the only young guy out there. This may present a problem if Rizzo brings in a decent 5th OF like say Marlon Byrd. Then again if MAT isn't producing, it's doubtful after 2015 that legions will be clamoring to see more of him instead of a vet. It's more a worry for later in 2015 when we'll probably want Turner up and in the line-up and Dusty might be sticking with a failing Escobar or Espinosa.
Dusty is a player favorite but his style promotes a bunker mentality. We are a family, the rest of the world are outsiders who don't get it. Because he's media savvy this doesn't break down the relationship between the players and the media covering them daily. However, GMs, owners, and broadcasters related to the team have been fair game in the past, and he's not against using the fans as a villain either. If things are going well no one but the aggrieved will care about the petty squabbles. That does matter (it helped push Dusty out in San Fran and Cincinnati) but fans will take it. However, if things don't go well, it feels like things could go south pretty fast. One thing I've noticed in looking at Dusty articles over the past couple weeks is that he doesn't seem to be one to take blame. Expect it to be shifted somewhere.
Ugh. That's a lot of negatives! This isn't good!
Eh I don't know. You manage for a long time and you are going to pick up a lot of negatives. His strong point - that players seemingly love playing for him - is really strong. Just look at the reaction to his hiring or go back and read about his handling of Joey Votto when he was dealing with anxiety issues. There's good reason for why they feel the way they do and it translates to very good regular season performances. The other things are sub-optimal but we don't know how many games "lost" to strict bullpen management, veteran dependence, or walk avoidance are made up by the intangibles which he does appear to have. We also can't assume that the other guy, whoever it would be, would handle those things much differently. And the whole potential for it being a big messy end? Well if things are going badly that the Nats are missing the playoffs again by a bunch do you really care if the end was a calm, stoic, "everyone agrees this isn't working" end? It's better but it's not the point.
The playoff thing is a bit concerning and the Nats will have to deal with that if the time comes. Let's hope it does.
Focusing on the fact he might not be the best strategic manager misses the larger picture. Managing is more than just strategic decisions. It's motivating players, dealing with the press, getting guys out of slumps and keeping guys hot. It's dealing with people; extremely talented, likely egotistical, special people. Since we can't measure that*, we have to use other things we can measure as a proxy. The best proxy, in my opinion, is wins. Dusty gets wins.
*OK we could probably do a survey of players from every team and measure manager satisfaction but that's not going to happen
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
It's Baker?
It's not Black it's Dusty Baker.
There are two immediate take-aways from this news. One is that the Nats organization is pretty much a joke right? They lowballed Black. He refused and they went with option #2. Whatever crazy reason you can come up with for the lowballing - cheapness, Rizzo wanting out, MLB hiring asking for a favor - it does not look good.
Second is that - Dusty is a fine choice. Not a great one, but certainly no worse than Black if we're trying to be objective. Dusty has won more, has actually been to the playoffs and the whole Prior/Wood thing is both overblown and over a decade in the past. He does have his issues (teams should take a walk now and then, playoff managing hasn't exactly been stellar) but I'd expect that he should be able to make the Nats successful.
We're now in the info gathering stage so look for more takes to come.
There are two immediate take-aways from this news. One is that the Nats organization is pretty much a joke right? They lowballed Black. He refused and they went with option #2. Whatever crazy reason you can come up with for the lowballing - cheapness, Rizzo wanting out, MLB hiring asking for a favor - it does not look good.
Second is that - Dusty is a fine choice. Not a great one, but certainly no worse than Black if we're trying to be objective. Dusty has won more, has actually been to the playoffs and the whole Prior/Wood thing is both overblown and over a decade in the past. He does have his issues (teams should take a walk now and then, playoff managing hasn't exactly been stellar) but I'd expect that he should be able to make the Nats successful.
We're now in the info gathering stage so look for more takes to come.
Monday, November 02, 2015
Monday Quickie - MLB 2015 is dead. Long live 2016.
Congratulations KC.
Feel free to enjoy this right up until game 1. Hell until whenever your season ends next year. For the Nats though, well wishing time is over. Now let's start next season.
Bud Black will be officially announced soon I would think. Mike Rizzo will probably be there too. Three questions I'd like to hear the answers to :
1) Rizzo : Why didn't you interview DeMarlo Hale? I know you were going after experience but other non-managers were interviewed. (This is more my curiosity than anything else)
2) Black : If this teams goal is a World Series, how can you be confident in your ability to get them there considering you've never managed a playoff team?
3) Rizzo : What's the payroll estimated to be next year?
Oh that 3rd question. That very important, off-season and next-season defining question. Someone recently let float that the Nats payroll could go as low as 110 million this year. That would be a pretty dire situation where the Nats don't do anything while shedding some useful players. Around 130 is more of a reasonable guess. It makes the 160 mill of 2015 a one-year aberration, setting the Nats general level in the 10-15 range. It's a disappointing level, but one that can be worked with and would allow Rizzo some freedom this offseason. Then there are the optimists who think the Nats will maintain that 160 mill Top 5ish payroll next year. If that's the case then the Nats would like be big players in the FA market in the off-season.
Also this week - Qualifying offers go out. ZNN should get one. Desmond might. Span probably won't. Those are my guesses. They need to be out by Friday, players need to respond by next Friday. Once that's done true FA can begin. What can you read into QOs? Not too much because they can be offered because you want a player back at a reasonable price or because you know they won't come back and you want a draft pick. I would say that if the Nats offer NO QOs out, I'd be kind of worried that the 110 payroll is a reality. That's because if these guys accept QOs it throws a wrench into plans for a payroll that low. I suppose the opposite is also true - if they offer all of them QOs they aren't going to have a low payroll... but they could know none of them will accept. Still I'd take it as a positive sign (in regards to the payroll - team building is another story).
Of course things really don't get moving until the week of December 6th when the Winter Meetings take place (in Nashville).
OK let's get this thing started. Back on track for what should very well be the last seasons of Strasburg, Ramos, Stammen, and if he's still here Storen. Along with what may be the only season of Chokey Weinerface. Get it done guys.
Feel free to enjoy this right up until game 1. Hell until whenever your season ends next year. For the Nats though, well wishing time is over. Now let's start next season.
Bud Black will be officially announced soon I would think. Mike Rizzo will probably be there too. Three questions I'd like to hear the answers to :
1) Rizzo : Why didn't you interview DeMarlo Hale? I know you were going after experience but other non-managers were interviewed. (This is more my curiosity than anything else)
2) Black : If this teams goal is a World Series, how can you be confident in your ability to get them there considering you've never managed a playoff team?
3) Rizzo : What's the payroll estimated to be next year?
Oh that 3rd question. That very important, off-season and next-season defining question. Someone recently let float that the Nats payroll could go as low as 110 million this year. That would be a pretty dire situation where the Nats don't do anything while shedding some useful players. Around 130 is more of a reasonable guess. It makes the 160 mill of 2015 a one-year aberration, setting the Nats general level in the 10-15 range. It's a disappointing level, but one that can be worked with and would allow Rizzo some freedom this offseason. Then there are the optimists who think the Nats will maintain that 160 mill Top 5ish payroll next year. If that's the case then the Nats would like be big players in the FA market in the off-season.
Also this week - Qualifying offers go out. ZNN should get one. Desmond might. Span probably won't. Those are my guesses. They need to be out by Friday, players need to respond by next Friday. Once that's done true FA can begin. What can you read into QOs? Not too much because they can be offered because you want a player back at a reasonable price or because you know they won't come back and you want a draft pick. I would say that if the Nats offer NO QOs out, I'd be kind of worried that the 110 payroll is a reality. That's because if these guys accept QOs it throws a wrench into plans for a payroll that low. I suppose the opposite is also true - if they offer all of them QOs they aren't going to have a low payroll... but they could know none of them will accept. Still I'd take it as a positive sign (in regards to the payroll - team building is another story).
Of course things really don't get moving until the week of December 6th when the Winter Meetings take place (in Nashville).
OK let's get this thing started. Back on track for what should very well be the last seasons of Strasburg, Ramos, Stammen, and if he's still here Storen. Along with what may be the only season of Chokey Weinerface. Get it done guys.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Last year outfield discussion : revisited
Outfield
Take : Unless something crazy happens this is an outfield that could carry the team offensively if Bryce takes off. It is suspect defensively, but I'm not worried about that. Souza and McLouth should make an ok 4 & 5 while Taylor gets ready, though I'd bail on McLouth and try to sign someone like DeJesus.
2015 Reality :Something kind of crazy did happen and Werth and Span both missed big chunks of the year. Werth missed half the year and Span over 100 games. In the mean time the Nats traded away Souza (he'd have the pop & patience combo we all saw, but he'd have the low average we all saw as well) and McLouth didn't play the whole year thanks to his own injury. So instead of Bryce - Werth - Span backed up by Souza, the Nats spent part of the year with Bryce - Taylor - Robinson backed up by Moore. Ugh.
It could have been awful and parts of it were. Taylor couldn't hit. Robinson was not good in the field. Werth had some injury related troubles at the plate when he did play and very few balls were hit into the glove of what I assume was the Madame Tussaud's wax figure of him the Nats installed in left field. Tyler Moore was the same big ol' nothing he's been for 3 years now.
However, Bryce nearly single-handedly saved the offense by becoming BRYCE. He put up one of the best offensive seasons of the past generation and his defense was ok to boot. That alone makes the outfield not a loser. Other high points were MAT's stellar defense and Clint Robinson's effective bat.
Basically it was the best of times, it was the worst of times so on average it was the ok of times.
As for my DeJesus idea. Not a great year (slightly below ave in TB before dying in LA)but at least he played.
Out of the box :Trading Giolito to the Brewers for Carlos Gomez would have not been enough to make the Nats a playoff team. He himself wasn't healthy either and when he did play he put up meh numbers. He was still good in the field and having him instead of Span/Taylor would have made the Nats better but not to any degree that they would have at some point run away with the East which was the goal.
That being said, if you like him he'd still be here in 2016 with a cheap contract, solving the whole "Span is hurt all the time, but Taylor can't hit" conundrum. However, all in all without that playoff in 2015 he'd have to spark a deep playoff run in 2016 not to rue that trade.
Take : Unless something crazy happens this is an outfield that could carry the team offensively if Bryce takes off. It is suspect defensively, but I'm not worried about that. Souza and McLouth should make an ok 4 & 5 while Taylor gets ready, though I'd bail on McLouth and try to sign someone like DeJesus.
2015 Reality :Something kind of crazy did happen and Werth and Span both missed big chunks of the year. Werth missed half the year and Span over 100 games. In the mean time the Nats traded away Souza (he'd have the pop & patience combo we all saw, but he'd have the low average we all saw as well) and McLouth didn't play the whole year thanks to his own injury. So instead of Bryce - Werth - Span backed up by Souza, the Nats spent part of the year with Bryce - Taylor - Robinson backed up by Moore. Ugh.
It could have been awful and parts of it were. Taylor couldn't hit. Robinson was not good in the field. Werth had some injury related troubles at the plate when he did play and very few balls were hit into the glove of what I assume was the Madame Tussaud's wax figure of him the Nats installed in left field. Tyler Moore was the same big ol' nothing he's been for 3 years now.
However, Bryce nearly single-handedly saved the offense by becoming BRYCE. He put up one of the best offensive seasons of the past generation and his defense was ok to boot. That alone makes the outfield not a loser. Other high points were MAT's stellar defense and Clint Robinson's effective bat.
Basically it was the best of times, it was the worst of times so on average it was the ok of times.
As for my DeJesus idea. Not a great year (slightly below ave in TB before dying in LA)but at least he played.
Out of the box :Trading Giolito to the Brewers for Carlos Gomez would have not been enough to make the Nats a playoff team. He himself wasn't healthy either and when he did play he put up meh numbers. He was still good in the field and having him instead of Span/Taylor would have made the Nats better but not to any degree that they would have at some point run away with the East which was the goal.
That being said, if you like him he'd still be here in 2016 with a cheap contract, solving the whole "Span is hurt all the time, but Taylor can't hit" conundrum. However, all in all without that playoff in 2015 he'd have to spark a deep playoff run in 2016 not to rue that trade.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
It's Blackest before the Dawn
It's Bud Black!
Sorry, I mistyped that.
It's Bud Black.
There that's better.
I've said things about Bud Black before. Here. And here's a better one. The gist? He's a fine hire. He's had 8 years of experience so he's not learning anything on the job. Based on all we know he won't make any more silly mistakes than your average manager and he won't have the team turn on him.
Anything more than that is us filling in the gaps. He's had no success, but was that bad talent (and it was bad) or lack of motivation? He's had good pens, but was that a kenn eye from the former pitcher and pitching coach or a function of Petco and some luck? Believe the most positive interpretation, because why not? But accept that the most negative interpretation is also perfectly valid.
So all we need now is Rizzo to bark at Black "Just do your job" and Werth to undermine him in the press and he'll be completely at home.
Sorry, I mistyped that.
It's Bud Black.
There that's better.
I've said things about Bud Black before. Here. And here's a better one. The gist? He's a fine hire. He's had 8 years of experience so he's not learning anything on the job. Based on all we know he won't make any more silly mistakes than your average manager and he won't have the team turn on him.
Anything more than that is us filling in the gaps. He's had no success, but was that bad talent (and it was bad) or lack of motivation? He's had good pens, but was that a kenn eye from the former pitcher and pitching coach or a function of Petco and some luck? Believe the most positive interpretation, because why not? But accept that the most negative interpretation is also perfectly valid.
So all we need now is Rizzo to bark at Black "Just do your job" and Werth to undermine him in the press and he'll be completely at home.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Offseason Position Discussion : Outfield
Presumed Plan : Werth in left. Bryce in right. While there's a small chance they offer a QO to Span, his injury situation and the cost (almost 16 mill) make it more likely that they don't. There's also a possibility they re-sign Span, but the deal would have to be cheap and short so again, more likely that they don't. That leaves Michael Taylor in center as the most likely scenario. Backing them up will be Clint Robinson and Matt denDekker probably has the inside track for the 5th OF spot.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Bryce plays. If I have to explain that to you I'm not sure why you are reading this.
Werth plays. Ignore the contract for a second. Werth hit well above average in 2012-2014. 2015 wasn't good but at the same time after returning from injury he hit for power and walked a fair amount. The former was a big worry as injuries can sap power pretty easily and had done it to Werth during his first comeback in 2015 and times before. So assuming he can boost that average back up he'll be a good hitter and worst case he'll be a prime Danny Espinosa, who was a useful piece. Also he's paid a ton to play.
You would prefer if Werth, who is aging, didn't have to play outfield, but 1B is unavailable and there is no DH so you work with what you have.
Span was a key figure for the Nats the past 2 seasons, hitting better than anyone expected he could in 2014 and giving the Nats solid CF defense. However this past season was almost a complete wash as hip and core issues made him miss 100 games. A qualifying offer is tempting as it would only bind the Nats to Span for a single season. However that is a lot of money to throw at a guy who couldn't get on the field for a number of reasons. Also his defense is likely slipping a bit due to age so a lot of his value is going to be maintaining that offense. He was able to do it while playing in 2015, but that's still a gamble. A FA deal would produce a number more in line with what he'd get on the FA market but it would also almost certainly have to be multiple years, which the Nats don't want to give thinking Taylor at most needs one more year. So the easiest thing to do is let Span walk.
Michael Taylor played CF for most of the year and was excellent in the field. He struggled a fair amount at the plate but that was his first full season. Expectations are that he'll improve over time and he showed a nice tendency for hits in big situations. Whether that's repeatable or not (likely not) you'd still rather see that than the alternative.
Problems with Presumed Plan : Bryce is not a problem.
When I say we'd rather have Werth not play outfield that isn't a minor concern. He's been flat out bad since 2012 and last year was bordering on terrible. Is it the jumps? The legs? I don't know. What I do know is that Werth in LF means more hits dropping in than should and a necessity that the CF be a very good fielder. The other issue with Werth is the same as has been for a while. He's injury prone playing 81, 88, and 127 games in 3 of the last four years, and he's not getting any younger. Chances are very good another couple of nicks and bumps take away 40+ games from him in 2016 and the wrong nicks and bumps could severely effect his offense which is the only reason to play him. Last year was bad, but there's legit potential for far worse.
It's quite possible that Michael Taylor will never really hit in the majors. He had that extremely high strikeout rate in the minors that serves as a red flag. It's common for guys like that to end up being AAAA players, who look good mashing minor league pitching but can't get over the hump to be consistent in the majors. And while he has nice power the guys who swing and miss like him tend to have great power. Will it develop? That's still a fair question, but Taylor isn't a young kid anymore. He'll be 25 to start next year and should be beginning to peak. The Nats can afford a question mark bat like his in the line-up if everyone is healthy, but if not he helps create a hole.
My take : Bryce plays
The rest of the OF is a puzzle that offers one reasonable solution. Werth pretty much has to play. I think that even ignoring the contract. If he didn't show power at the end of the year things might be different but he hit with pop all through August and September so the potential is still high that he can have a very good offensive season. As long as that potential is there and reasonable, you have to play him.
If you have to play Werth you need a CF who can compensate for him in the field and as of today Taylor is a better choice for that than Span. I think Span could do the job, but given the trajectory of his defensive stats, his age, and his injury status, I can't go beyond "I think". Taylor, on the other hand, young and healthy and with the experience of 2015 under his belt (and better stats) I feel strongly would be able to do it. His offense is a problem yes, but he was a real prospect in the minors and deserves a real shot. There were flashes last year and it's quite likely he just tired out at year's end. As late as the first week of September he was simply "below average" and only a three week collapse (.151 with 1 double to end year) dropped him to terrible. Plus the Nats don't have any other good CF options or really any good OF options in the minors, so it behooves them to find out sooner rather than later if Taylor is their guy. Another half-to-full season of starting would help clear that up.
If Taylor is the starter, than there is no reason to keep Span around. I find it really hard to commit either a ton of money or a couple years to Span given that he broke, then broke again, then broke again, and I think broke one more time in a 12 month time frame. I'd offer something team-favored (say 1 yr, 8-10 million with a team option for a 2nd year) and if he takes it great. Taylor can bench it for a year (or as long as everyone is healthy and hitting). If he doesn't, so be it.
Clint Robinson is a good hitter, bad outfielder but passable for most situations. The worst case would be Bryce moving to CF and Clint and Werth on the corners but you'd probably even take that if those three were all hitting. denDekker isn't the plus CF you really want as a 5th OF, but he's solid and hit ok to end the year. If it's him or if it's not it doesn't terribly matter... wait
See this is the trap we fell into last year. Lots of questions, but treating the bench the same. No. It has to be different in this year. If Span is here than Taylor and Robinson are a fine bench. They have complimentary skills and potential to do well in long stints. But if Span isn't here that puts more pressure on the bench and by going with denDekker you make your bench weaker. (Plus we haven't even considered the real possibility that Robinson will be playing first at some point for Zimm) No. The Nats either bring back Span, using the QO or getting him in a cheap deal, or they sign a guy who would be a 4th OF for their 5th OF. Byrd, De Aza, Rajai Davis. Or they do something the equivalent of getting Span, like signing Parra. That's gotta be the way.
Outside the Box Suggestion : Bryce wants to play CF. He is motivated to play CF. Oddly he doesn't seem to suffer when he's put in CF despite corner OF stats that suggest he would. So play Bryce in CF. Like name Bryce the CF and then go out and get a huge corner lefty-hitting OF bat. Take a chance on Jason Heyward, who's entering his prime and can field so Bryce can shift over near Werth. Go out and get Cargo from the selling Rockies.
Remember Bryce is likely here for only 3 more years. There needs to be a plan to be playoff competitive over that time frame. You aren't going to have that type of player fall into your lap again.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Bryce plays. If I have to explain that to you I'm not sure why you are reading this.
Werth plays. Ignore the contract for a second. Werth hit well above average in 2012-2014. 2015 wasn't good but at the same time after returning from injury he hit for power and walked a fair amount. The former was a big worry as injuries can sap power pretty easily and had done it to Werth during his first comeback in 2015 and times before. So assuming he can boost that average back up he'll be a good hitter and worst case he'll be a prime Danny Espinosa, who was a useful piece. Also he's paid a ton to play.
You would prefer if Werth, who is aging, didn't have to play outfield, but 1B is unavailable and there is no DH so you work with what you have.
Span was a key figure for the Nats the past 2 seasons, hitting better than anyone expected he could in 2014 and giving the Nats solid CF defense. However this past season was almost a complete wash as hip and core issues made him miss 100 games. A qualifying offer is tempting as it would only bind the Nats to Span for a single season. However that is a lot of money to throw at a guy who couldn't get on the field for a number of reasons. Also his defense is likely slipping a bit due to age so a lot of his value is going to be maintaining that offense. He was able to do it while playing in 2015, but that's still a gamble. A FA deal would produce a number more in line with what he'd get on the FA market but it would also almost certainly have to be multiple years, which the Nats don't want to give thinking Taylor at most needs one more year. So the easiest thing to do is let Span walk.
Michael Taylor played CF for most of the year and was excellent in the field. He struggled a fair amount at the plate but that was his first full season. Expectations are that he'll improve over time and he showed a nice tendency for hits in big situations. Whether that's repeatable or not (likely not) you'd still rather see that than the alternative.
Problems with Presumed Plan : Bryce is not a problem.
When I say we'd rather have Werth not play outfield that isn't a minor concern. He's been flat out bad since 2012 and last year was bordering on terrible. Is it the jumps? The legs? I don't know. What I do know is that Werth in LF means more hits dropping in than should and a necessity that the CF be a very good fielder. The other issue with Werth is the same as has been for a while. He's injury prone playing 81, 88, and 127 games in 3 of the last four years, and he's not getting any younger. Chances are very good another couple of nicks and bumps take away 40+ games from him in 2016 and the wrong nicks and bumps could severely effect his offense which is the only reason to play him. Last year was bad, but there's legit potential for far worse.
It's quite possible that Michael Taylor will never really hit in the majors. He had that extremely high strikeout rate in the minors that serves as a red flag. It's common for guys like that to end up being AAAA players, who look good mashing minor league pitching but can't get over the hump to be consistent in the majors. And while he has nice power the guys who swing and miss like him tend to have great power. Will it develop? That's still a fair question, but Taylor isn't a young kid anymore. He'll be 25 to start next year and should be beginning to peak. The Nats can afford a question mark bat like his in the line-up if everyone is healthy, but if not he helps create a hole.
My take : Bryce plays
The rest of the OF is a puzzle that offers one reasonable solution. Werth pretty much has to play. I think that even ignoring the contract. If he didn't show power at the end of the year things might be different but he hit with pop all through August and September so the potential is still high that he can have a very good offensive season. As long as that potential is there and reasonable, you have to play him.
If you have to play Werth you need a CF who can compensate for him in the field and as of today Taylor is a better choice for that than Span. I think Span could do the job, but given the trajectory of his defensive stats, his age, and his injury status, I can't go beyond "I think". Taylor, on the other hand, young and healthy and with the experience of 2015 under his belt (and better stats) I feel strongly would be able to do it. His offense is a problem yes, but he was a real prospect in the minors and deserves a real shot. There were flashes last year and it's quite likely he just tired out at year's end. As late as the first week of September he was simply "below average" and only a three week collapse (.151 with 1 double to end year) dropped him to terrible. Plus the Nats don't have any other good CF options or really any good OF options in the minors, so it behooves them to find out sooner rather than later if Taylor is their guy. Another half-to-full season of starting would help clear that up.
If Taylor is the starter, than there is no reason to keep Span around. I find it really hard to commit either a ton of money or a couple years to Span given that he broke, then broke again, then broke again, and I think broke one more time in a 12 month time frame. I'd offer something team-favored (say 1 yr, 8-10 million with a team option for a 2nd year) and if he takes it great. Taylor can bench it for a year (or as long as everyone is healthy and hitting). If he doesn't, so be it.
Clint Robinson is a good hitter, bad outfielder but passable for most situations. The worst case would be Bryce moving to CF and Clint and Werth on the corners but you'd probably even take that if those three were all hitting. denDekker isn't the plus CF you really want as a 5th OF, but he's solid and hit ok to end the year. If it's him or if it's not it doesn't terribly matter... wait
See this is the trap we fell into last year. Lots of questions, but treating the bench the same. No. It has to be different in this year. If Span is here than Taylor and Robinson are a fine bench. They have complimentary skills and potential to do well in long stints. But if Span isn't here that puts more pressure on the bench and by going with denDekker you make your bench weaker. (Plus we haven't even considered the real possibility that Robinson will be playing first at some point for Zimm) No. The Nats either bring back Span, using the QO or getting him in a cheap deal, or they sign a guy who would be a 4th OF for their 5th OF. Byrd, De Aza, Rajai Davis. Or they do something the equivalent of getting Span, like signing Parra. That's gotta be the way.
Outside the Box Suggestion : Bryce wants to play CF. He is motivated to play CF. Oddly he doesn't seem to suffer when he's put in CF despite corner OF stats that suggest he would. So play Bryce in CF. Like name Bryce the CF and then go out and get a huge corner lefty-hitting OF bat. Take a chance on Jason Heyward, who's entering his prime and can field so Bryce can shift over near Werth. Go out and get Cargo from the selling Rockies.
Remember Bryce is likely here for only 3 more years. There needs to be a plan to be playoff competitive over that time frame. You aren't going to have that type of player fall into your lap again.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
World Series Prediction
Just to do it : Royals in 5.
But the Mets could win in 5 too. I don't know. Want to pick something.
Back to analyzing the 2016 Nats a.k.a "Bryce and the 99 Questions" tomorrow.
But the Mets could win in 5 too. I don't know. Want to pick something.
Back to analyzing the 2016 Nats a.k.a "Bryce and the 99 Questions" tomorrow.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Monday Quickie : Experience
The Nats are narrowing down the field of potential managers and it appears that Bud Black and Dusty Baker are leading the pack. This is fine. I do wonder if the Nats are doubling down on experience (no DeMarlo Hale interview?) but if you are going to double down on something "experience" is better than "tough Marine-itude!"
But given that these are also ex-managers it is of interest to know why they were fired and why the Nats would be interested in them.
Dusty Baker
Dusty has been a successful manager over his career. His first job was way back in 1993in San Francisco at the youthful age of 44. After a bumpy start (3 seasons below .500) he guided the Giants to 6 straight winning seasons 4 of them 90 wins or better. He would make the playoffs three times. The Giants would be swept in the DS his first time out in 1997 by the Marlins. They'd lose another DS 3 games to 1 to the Mets in 2000. Finally he'd break through in 2002 making it all the way to the World Series before losing to the Angels in 7 games.
That sounds pretty successful. What went wrong? Baker didn't get along with the ownership. He wanted more respect, meaning he didn't like the owner talking about replacing him (as he did early on), or about how the team failed (as he did after Mets series), or setting him up with the highest expectations (as he did before 2002). The owner, Magowan, didn't like how Baker himself used the media to note that he was interested in other jobs and unhappy with the ownership and also how the media fawned over and sided with Dusty.
So Dusty and the Giants basically agreed he would not come back and off to Chicago he went. He would take a young but talented squad and immediately make them winners, getting them to their first NLCS since 1984 and steps away from their first World Series since 1954. But it was not to be. Baker presided over a fantastic game 6 meltdown from which the Cubs would never recover. Over the rest of his short time in the Windy City, the Sosa era would end badly, the Cubs players would revolt against a broadcaster who they felt were too critical of the team and more importantly the Cubs went back to being terrible. They stumbled late in 2004 and missed the playoffs and wouldn't be good again. Certainly injuries to a questionable roster were the main reason the Cubs quickly became irrelevant again, but at the very least it was clear Dusty was not working in Chicago.
He would also at this time become a favorite target of the sabrmetrically minded. Dusty seemingly overused his young pitchers and broke them down and didn't appreciate the necessity of getting on base. The latter is almost certainly true. His teams don't take a lot of walks mirroring his own aggressive approach as a player. The former though is what sticks in most people's minds and is more of a half truth. He did use young arms for a lot of 100+ pitch games, but how much of their future was ruined because of that? Wood was driven hard before Dusty ever got there and already missed a season due to injury. Zambrano was ridden hardest and didn't break down until turning 30. Prior broke down nearly immediately and never recovered suggesting rather than overuse it was something inherent to his mechanics. Dusty probably didn't help the situation but wasn't likely the cause, and has since shown less proclivity for pushing the pitch count envelope. The league has changed, in some part thanks to the Wood/Prior issues, and Dusty adapted.
Dusty would go on to one more stop, managing Cincinnati from 2008 through 2013. The team would be generally successful during his tenure going from 74 wins in year one to a high of 97 wins in 2012. He would lose 2 division series and a Wild Card game during his time in Cincinnati. But again Baker didn't mesh with someone or something. This time it was new GM Walt Jocketty. They didn't quite see eye to eye. Jocketty looking for someone more in the LaRussa role of the tactician, and Baker looking for roster help that didn't come. When Baker basically said there was no reason to fire the hitting coach and put himself on the line out he went.
Bud Black
Bud Black is a much easier cover. He was hired to manage the Padres in 2007 and in 8+ seasons had two winning years and no playoff appearances. For the most part though, the Padres have been a competitive team under Black only twice winning under 76 games. Most analysts believe that he's done the best he could with a organization that produced few decent players under his watch.
There is some thought that that Black didn't help with that, as notable players such as Anthony Rizzo and Edison Volquez have developed stronger in other places after trials in San Diego. However, he did seem to have a knack for finding and using his bullpen arms and it's not like there are a flood of former Padres hitting stars out there. They did try to compensate for Black's apparent weakness in developing young hitters at the major league level, by furnishing him with a truck load of free agent bats this past winter. However they immediately failed and seeing the writing on the wall, which included either getting this current roster to immediately perform or failing that another rebuild, the Padres decided to go in a different direction. They failed to get any better with Pat Murphy helming the team.
The other knock on Black would be those 0 playoff appearances. He not only failed to get the Padres to the post-season, in two seasons he captained collapses. in 2007 they went 4-7 to end the season (0-3 in last three) to miss the playoffs outright and would lose a one-gamer to the Rockies to make the wild card. In 2010 they finished 14-23, losing 10 in a row at one point, and would lose the division by 2 games. But 2007 was marred by Hoffman blowing two of the last games of the year something no one hangs on Black.
My thoughts today
Reading through this, Dusty Baker seems like a solid motivator who might be overly sensitive to negativity. It can be the owner, the media, or the GM, but he clearly does not handle it well, in part because he does succeed. If he wins, why are people on his back? He has some notions about strategy that don't work all that well, but he's unlikely to abuse these arms (especially with Rizzo looking over his shoulder) and this franchise has never been one to care about OBP. He kind of fits in, in a way. He is as strictly regimental as Williams was (during his Reds days a complaint was underusing Chapman) but given his general success he probably has better intuition on who to use, and when to use them, although this has bit him in the playoffs. He does favor "his guys" a bit too much but he's going to work with what's given and let's face it, in 4 years of Nats have you ever seen a bench player that's been good enough to be wasted sitting there?
Bud Black seems like a prefectly vanilla choice. On the plus side he's very likely to be able to sort through the mess of relief arms to find a workable bullpen. Given the Nats overall strategy of "we don't spend on middle relief arms" that would work well here. He'd also almost certainly get along with everyone, having few player, management or media tiffs in his time in San Diego. That may be important following a manager that lost the clubhouse. On the flip side he doesn't seem to light a fire under any team. If he's relying on that to happen internally he may have to look elsewhere as the Nats don't really have boisterous clubhouse motivators. And while you can point to playoff collapses with Dusty, at least he got his teams there. Over the long haul of a season, Black may lack that necessary next level switch that many teams find necessary to turn on in September.
But given that these are also ex-managers it is of interest to know why they were fired and why the Nats would be interested in them.
Dusty Baker
Dusty has been a successful manager over his career. His first job was way back in 1993in San Francisco at the youthful age of 44. After a bumpy start (3 seasons below .500) he guided the Giants to 6 straight winning seasons 4 of them 90 wins or better. He would make the playoffs three times. The Giants would be swept in the DS his first time out in 1997 by the Marlins. They'd lose another DS 3 games to 1 to the Mets in 2000. Finally he'd break through in 2002 making it all the way to the World Series before losing to the Angels in 7 games.
That sounds pretty successful. What went wrong? Baker didn't get along with the ownership. He wanted more respect, meaning he didn't like the owner talking about replacing him (as he did early on), or about how the team failed (as he did after Mets series), or setting him up with the highest expectations (as he did before 2002). The owner, Magowan, didn't like how Baker himself used the media to note that he was interested in other jobs and unhappy with the ownership and also how the media fawned over and sided with Dusty.
So Dusty and the Giants basically agreed he would not come back and off to Chicago he went. He would take a young but talented squad and immediately make them winners, getting them to their first NLCS since 1984 and steps away from their first World Series since 1954. But it was not to be. Baker presided over a fantastic game 6 meltdown from which the Cubs would never recover. Over the rest of his short time in the Windy City, the Sosa era would end badly, the Cubs players would revolt against a broadcaster who they felt were too critical of the team and more importantly the Cubs went back to being terrible. They stumbled late in 2004 and missed the playoffs and wouldn't be good again. Certainly injuries to a questionable roster were the main reason the Cubs quickly became irrelevant again, but at the very least it was clear Dusty was not working in Chicago.
He would also at this time become a favorite target of the sabrmetrically minded. Dusty seemingly overused his young pitchers and broke them down and didn't appreciate the necessity of getting on base. The latter is almost certainly true. His teams don't take a lot of walks mirroring his own aggressive approach as a player. The former though is what sticks in most people's minds and is more of a half truth. He did use young arms for a lot of 100+ pitch games, but how much of their future was ruined because of that? Wood was driven hard before Dusty ever got there and already missed a season due to injury. Zambrano was ridden hardest and didn't break down until turning 30. Prior broke down nearly immediately and never recovered suggesting rather than overuse it was something inherent to his mechanics. Dusty probably didn't help the situation but wasn't likely the cause, and has since shown less proclivity for pushing the pitch count envelope. The league has changed, in some part thanks to the Wood/Prior issues, and Dusty adapted.
Dusty would go on to one more stop, managing Cincinnati from 2008 through 2013. The team would be generally successful during his tenure going from 74 wins in year one to a high of 97 wins in 2012. He would lose 2 division series and a Wild Card game during his time in Cincinnati. But again Baker didn't mesh with someone or something. This time it was new GM Walt Jocketty. They didn't quite see eye to eye. Jocketty looking for someone more in the LaRussa role of the tactician, and Baker looking for roster help that didn't come. When Baker basically said there was no reason to fire the hitting coach and put himself on the line out he went.
Bud Black
Bud Black is a much easier cover. He was hired to manage the Padres in 2007 and in 8+ seasons had two winning years and no playoff appearances. For the most part though, the Padres have been a competitive team under Black only twice winning under 76 games. Most analysts believe that he's done the best he could with a organization that produced few decent players under his watch.
There is some thought that that Black didn't help with that, as notable players such as Anthony Rizzo and Edison Volquez have developed stronger in other places after trials in San Diego. However, he did seem to have a knack for finding and using his bullpen arms and it's not like there are a flood of former Padres hitting stars out there. They did try to compensate for Black's apparent weakness in developing young hitters at the major league level, by furnishing him with a truck load of free agent bats this past winter. However they immediately failed and seeing the writing on the wall, which included either getting this current roster to immediately perform or failing that another rebuild, the Padres decided to go in a different direction. They failed to get any better with Pat Murphy helming the team.
The other knock on Black would be those 0 playoff appearances. He not only failed to get the Padres to the post-season, in two seasons he captained collapses. in 2007 they went 4-7 to end the season (0-3 in last three) to miss the playoffs outright and would lose a one-gamer to the Rockies to make the wild card. In 2010 they finished 14-23, losing 10 in a row at one point, and would lose the division by 2 games. But 2007 was marred by Hoffman blowing two of the last games of the year something no one hangs on Black.
My thoughts today
Reading through this, Dusty Baker seems like a solid motivator who might be overly sensitive to negativity. It can be the owner, the media, or the GM, but he clearly does not handle it well, in part because he does succeed. If he wins, why are people on his back? He has some notions about strategy that don't work all that well, but he's unlikely to abuse these arms (especially with Rizzo looking over his shoulder) and this franchise has never been one to care about OBP. He kind of fits in, in a way. He is as strictly regimental as Williams was (during his Reds days a complaint was underusing Chapman) but given his general success he probably has better intuition on who to use, and when to use them, although this has bit him in the playoffs. He does favor "his guys" a bit too much but he's going to work with what's given and let's face it, in 4 years of Nats have you ever seen a bench player that's been good enough to be wasted sitting there?
Bud Black seems like a prefectly vanilla choice. On the plus side he's very likely to be able to sort through the mess of relief arms to find a workable bullpen. Given the Nats overall strategy of "we don't spend on middle relief arms" that would work well here. He'd also almost certainly get along with everyone, having few player, management or media tiffs in his time in San Diego. That may be important following a manager that lost the clubhouse. On the flip side he doesn't seem to light a fire under any team. If he's relying on that to happen internally he may have to look elsewhere as the Nats don't really have boisterous clubhouse motivators. And while you can point to playoff collapses with Dusty, at least he got his teams there. Over the long haul of a season, Black may lack that necessary next level switch that many teams find necessary to turn on in September.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Last year third base discussion : revisited
Third Base
Take : Rendon is really good. Rendon is a third baseman. Ryan Zimmerman can no longer play third base. Rendon will play third base.
That's about as long as I can drag out the reasoning. Rendon's 2014 was MVP vote worthy. There was nothing he didn't do well and he hadn't gotten injured in two seasons so we put that behind us. He would start. The decision was simple.
I had Frandsen as the back-up at that point. Really didn't matter too much. You aren't sitting Rendon, right?
2015 Reality : Rendon got injured in Spring Training. What the Nats training staff (now fired) first claimed was a "day to day" injury lasted two and a half months. Ok ok. To be fair that initial knee injury (MCL sprain) only lasted a month and a half, so day to day was only ridiculously wrong, I guess. He would strain his oblique in returning which would cost him another month. By the time Rendon was healthy, Yunel Escobar had ensconced himself at third and the Nats, wanting to keep Yuney hitting and not push him to another position he'd have to learn mid-season, decided to keep him there and moved Rendon to 2nd. Rendon played 2nd in 2013 and 2014 so he was fine at it.
Rendon hit ok for that first month he was back. No power but decent patience and average ( .290 / . 375 / .362) so it wasn't a problem waiting the return of his pop out. Problem is he would get injured again. This time straining his quadriceps* and sitting out for another month. Rendon came back again, playing second again, and would have an down and up rest of the season.
23 games : .200 / .274 /.271
24 games : .364 / .442 / .525
15 games : .155 / .239 / .224
The way I look at that is that he got his swing back after a while but being out of shape/practice he just got tired at the end of the year. Werth would follow a very similar pattern. Another possible interpretation is after they started hitting, pitchers, who will try to get you out the easiest way possible to start, adjusted and Rendon couldn't keep up. I don't really believe that as a possibility for Rendon as much as I do for the aging Werth but felt I should put it out there.
At third actually Yunel never stopped hitting. He'd have a poor July, but not an awful one, and then he'd follow that up with his best month ever in August. He'd have his most power in August. His best OBP in September. His highest average in June. Simply put he hit pretty much all year long. If it was a fluke (and it might be) it was a season long fluke, not one powered by a month or two of incredibly hot hitting.
Why do I say it might be a fluke? Because that BABIP was so much higher than other years. .347 in 2015 when he had been more of a .285 type. On the pro-Yuney side he did hit more GBs than he had in the past couple of years, that should help the BABIP, and he did hit more LD then ever, which also helps the BABIP. Basically, he stopped hitting flyballs. The lowest percentage since his rookie year when he had his highest BABIP of .364. So maybe he's found his groove? I don't know. Still seems high to me for someone who is slowing down and hasn't exactly improved his contact percentages.
Meanwhile though Yunel gives you nothing else. I noted before that his fielding woes of 2014 turned out to be a trend not an anomaly. He can't move in the field anymore. He is slow on the basepaths. He's doesn't hit for power or walk much (though he's not the worst at either). All in all if he can't hit for average he's not a good player and even hitting .315 he's more "ok" than "good".
I guess what I'm saying is that you look at his average in 2015 and think "Oh, this guy really helped the Nats out" but every layer you peel off beyond that shows him hurting the Nats in this little way or that little way. When you get to the core you now realize he helped the Nats, but not a lot and there's big potential for him to be a negative next year
Out of the box : It was mostly reaching for something but I suggested moving Rendon to 1B to avoid injuries (with Zimm becoming a super sub). Completely by accident that would have totally worked for the Nats. Rendon wouldn't have been diving for a ball in ST meaning he wouldn't have gotten hurt. Zimm couldn't have worked around his foot issues while playing OF forcing him to take time off much earlier than he did. All in all the Nats would have been better off, possibly much better off in this out of the box idea. And if that led them to trading for Donaldson, woo boy. All these out of the box ideas are just throwing stuff at a wall usually they end up being impossible or wouldn't have worked, but throw enough out there and a couple are bound to look good.
*Apologies if I got Rendon's injuries and timeline a little wrong before. It's hard to keep up with! Insert sad emoticon.
Take : Rendon is really good. Rendon is a third baseman. Ryan Zimmerman can no longer play third base. Rendon will play third base.
That's about as long as I can drag out the reasoning. Rendon's 2014 was MVP vote worthy. There was nothing he didn't do well and he hadn't gotten injured in two seasons so we put that behind us. He would start. The decision was simple.
I had Frandsen as the back-up at that point. Really didn't matter too much. You aren't sitting Rendon, right?
2015 Reality : Rendon got injured in Spring Training. What the Nats training staff (now fired) first claimed was a "day to day" injury lasted two and a half months. Ok ok. To be fair that initial knee injury (MCL sprain) only lasted a month and a half, so day to day was only ridiculously wrong, I guess. He would strain his oblique in returning which would cost him another month. By the time Rendon was healthy, Yunel Escobar had ensconced himself at third and the Nats, wanting to keep Yuney hitting and not push him to another position he'd have to learn mid-season, decided to keep him there and moved Rendon to 2nd. Rendon played 2nd in 2013 and 2014 so he was fine at it.
Rendon hit ok for that first month he was back. No power but decent patience and average ( .290 / . 375 / .362) so it wasn't a problem waiting the return of his pop out. Problem is he would get injured again. This time straining his quadriceps* and sitting out for another month. Rendon came back again, playing second again, and would have an down and up rest of the season.
23 games : .200 / .274 /.271
24 games : .364 / .442 / .525
15 games : .155 / .239 / .224
The way I look at that is that he got his swing back after a while but being out of shape/practice he just got tired at the end of the year. Werth would follow a very similar pattern. Another possible interpretation is after they started hitting, pitchers, who will try to get you out the easiest way possible to start, adjusted and Rendon couldn't keep up. I don't really believe that as a possibility for Rendon as much as I do for the aging Werth but felt I should put it out there.
At third actually Yunel never stopped hitting. He'd have a poor July, but not an awful one, and then he'd follow that up with his best month ever in August. He'd have his most power in August. His best OBP in September. His highest average in June. Simply put he hit pretty much all year long. If it was a fluke (and it might be) it was a season long fluke, not one powered by a month or two of incredibly hot hitting.
Why do I say it might be a fluke? Because that BABIP was so much higher than other years. .347 in 2015 when he had been more of a .285 type. On the pro-Yuney side he did hit more GBs than he had in the past couple of years, that should help the BABIP, and he did hit more LD then ever, which also helps the BABIP. Basically, he stopped hitting flyballs. The lowest percentage since his rookie year when he had his highest BABIP of .364. So maybe he's found his groove? I don't know. Still seems high to me for someone who is slowing down and hasn't exactly improved his contact percentages.
Meanwhile though Yunel gives you nothing else. I noted before that his fielding woes of 2014 turned out to be a trend not an anomaly. He can't move in the field anymore. He is slow on the basepaths. He's doesn't hit for power or walk much (though he's not the worst at either). All in all if he can't hit for average he's not a good player and even hitting .315 he's more "ok" than "good".
I guess what I'm saying is that you look at his average in 2015 and think "Oh, this guy really helped the Nats out" but every layer you peel off beyond that shows him hurting the Nats in this little way or that little way. When you get to the core you now realize he helped the Nats, but not a lot and there's big potential for him to be a negative next year
Out of the box : It was mostly reaching for something but I suggested moving Rendon to 1B to avoid injuries (with Zimm becoming a super sub). Completely by accident that would have totally worked for the Nats. Rendon wouldn't have been diving for a ball in ST meaning he wouldn't have gotten hurt. Zimm couldn't have worked around his foot issues while playing OF forcing him to take time off much earlier than he did. All in all the Nats would have been better off, possibly much better off in this out of the box idea. And if that led them to trading for Donaldson, woo boy. All these out of the box ideas are just throwing stuff at a wall usually they end up being impossible or wouldn't have worked, but throw enough out there and a couple are bound to look good.
*Apologies if I got Rendon's injuries and timeline a little wrong before. It's hard to keep up with! Insert sad emoticon.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Offseason Position Discussion : Third Base
Presumed Plan : Probably Rendon. At least that's what they said. Who's backing up? We assume Yuney will definitely be starting (as of today). If Danny isn't starting he would back-up. If he is starting then the Nats need to find a guy
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Rendon is a third baseman by trade playing second because that is what is needed. He wants to be at third, the Nats want him to be there so the sooner he slots back in the better. When Rendon is healthy he has proven to be one of the better hitting 3B in the league putting up a .287 / .351 / .473 line in 2014 and showing that kind of offensive skill in spurts during a lost 2015 campaign. He was also a superior defender at third. Assuming his injuries haven't taken that from him (and there's no good reason to think so - he was solid at 2B) Everything works out pretty nicely.
Escobar shifts back into SS, where he's played most of his career but couldn't last year with Desmond still around. This was the plan all along, we assume. A cost-effective SS replacement for the bridge year between Desmond and Turner.
If 2nd is Danny's, and we assume as much, then the Nats will have to find a bench player to be the MI/3B back-up. There isn't an internal solution unless you want to bring up Turner to sit at first and transition to a starting role. Only Espinosa, Rendon and Escobar played 3rd base last year. Uggla shouldn't be in the majors. Difo needs more time in the minors.
Problems with Presumed Plan : Relying on Rendon, who has now been injured in 2009, 2010, 2012 and2014 2015, has to be seen as a huge gamble. If he is healthy and plays he is a superior player. However the chances of him being healthy and playing are no better than a coin flip.
Yunel Escobar is known to be temperamental and they kept him at third because he was hitting well. He may throw a fit about being moved. Or not. We'll see. The real problem though is the Nats were hoping for a return to form from Yunel defensively after a terrible 2014. Instead they saw that 2014 wasn't a fluke and he can't hack it in the field. Moving him back to a more demanding defensive position would be questionable to say the least.
My take : You have to go with Rendon somewhere. He's young, cheap, and when healthy, very very good. He's the type of player you accomodate, not Escobar. True, I think it makes more sense to stick him at 2B. Yuney can remain as hidden as possible at 3B. Meanwhile, Rendon would be possibly the best at 2B, and the good players only run about 5-10 deep. At 3B he's more Top 5 and the good players run around 15 deep. But that only matters if you assume the Nats will try to get one of those good players. Just getting a healthy Rendon in the lineup is the most important thing. I'm not revolting at Rendon playing 3B.
Escobar playing short is unfortunate but the necessary move to accomodate Rendon. It's not optimal but that's pretty much as bad as I can put it. Yuney playing defense anywhere is going to be bad and he can't be hidden completely at 1B or a DH so it's going to be an issue. Yuney 3B, Danny SS, Rendon 2B is probably ok. Rendon 3B, Yuney SS, Danny 2B is probably slightly worse. The first one doesn't solve a problem though, and the second one doesn't create one.
If you actually want to solve the problem (problem being Yuney and Danny are both ok players who might be negatives in 2016 and Rendon can't be relied on) you need to do something more than shift to the optimal positions. How about trading for Todd Frazier? That seems like a popular idea. He's good offensively and defensively and under a reasonable contract for two more seasons. Of course that means he won't come cheap and if the Nats won't deal Giolito or Turner or Ross the Nats really don't have anything of value to offer other than bulk.
Oh and I've said it before but I think Stephen Drew will end up being the bench guy. Juan Uribe would be the ideal one for me, but could get starters money somewhere. Given his last few years, "Old Espy" as I'll call Drew for his power/D/nothing else combination, should be cheap. The Nats could do worse (and just did with Uggla!)
Outside the Box Suggestion : Trade Giolito for Arenendo. Pitching prospects are generally questionable. First on whether they can make it, and second on whether they can make an impact. Strasburg was more highly regarded than Giolito and he's been really really good but has gotten the Nats all of home field advantage in one playoff series. So even if Giolito manages to make the majors without suffering another injury and is really good, he's only able to impact the season so much. A great young power hitter though? That's more of a game changer.
Stupid? I'm trying to go outside the box here and there are a couple of things about Giolito that should be addressed. One is that in AA he didn't dominate. In 8 starts he merely did well. Now as a 21 year old in AA "well" translates to "really good" and no one thinks he isn't on a path to a major league rotation, but it does start to question whether he'll be top of the rotation and if so how long it might take for him to get there. Also he's only up to 117 IP. It's likely next year the Nats top him off at 140ish meaning that it's very unlikely he's an impact player for next year's Nats either. The most likely scenario at this instance puts him at having an #3 type season with less than 180 IP in 2017, not even 2016. If you think the Nats fortunes over the next few years are going to be driven by Bryce Harper, understand he could be gone after 2018. Meaning the overlap for great Giolito and prime Bryce might only be a single season. Is that enough to not go all in now for?
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Rendon is a third baseman by trade playing second because that is what is needed. He wants to be at third, the Nats want him to be there so the sooner he slots back in the better. When Rendon is healthy he has proven to be one of the better hitting 3B in the league putting up a .287 / .351 / .473 line in 2014 and showing that kind of offensive skill in spurts during a lost 2015 campaign. He was also a superior defender at third. Assuming his injuries haven't taken that from him (and there's no good reason to think so - he was solid at 2B) Everything works out pretty nicely.
Escobar shifts back into SS, where he's played most of his career but couldn't last year with Desmond still around. This was the plan all along, we assume. A cost-effective SS replacement for the bridge year between Desmond and Turner.
If 2nd is Danny's, and we assume as much, then the Nats will have to find a bench player to be the MI/3B back-up. There isn't an internal solution unless you want to bring up Turner to sit at first and transition to a starting role. Only Espinosa, Rendon and Escobar played 3rd base last year. Uggla shouldn't be in the majors. Difo needs more time in the minors.
Problems with Presumed Plan : Relying on Rendon, who has now been injured in 2009, 2010, 2012 and
Yunel Escobar is known to be temperamental and they kept him at third because he was hitting well. He may throw a fit about being moved. Or not. We'll see. The real problem though is the Nats were hoping for a return to form from Yunel defensively after a terrible 2014. Instead they saw that 2014 wasn't a fluke and he can't hack it in the field. Moving him back to a more demanding defensive position would be questionable to say the least.
My take : You have to go with Rendon somewhere. He's young, cheap, and when healthy, very very good. He's the type of player you accomodate, not Escobar. True, I think it makes more sense to stick him at 2B. Yuney can remain as hidden as possible at 3B. Meanwhile, Rendon would be possibly the best at 2B, and the good players only run about 5-10 deep. At 3B he's more Top 5 and the good players run around 15 deep. But that only matters if you assume the Nats will try to get one of those good players. Just getting a healthy Rendon in the lineup is the most important thing. I'm not revolting at Rendon playing 3B.
Escobar playing short is unfortunate but the necessary move to accomodate Rendon. It's not optimal but that's pretty much as bad as I can put it. Yuney playing defense anywhere is going to be bad and he can't be hidden completely at 1B or a DH so it's going to be an issue. Yuney 3B, Danny SS, Rendon 2B is probably ok. Rendon 3B, Yuney SS, Danny 2B is probably slightly worse. The first one doesn't solve a problem though, and the second one doesn't create one.
If you actually want to solve the problem (problem being Yuney and Danny are both ok players who might be negatives in 2016 and Rendon can't be relied on) you need to do something more than shift to the optimal positions. How about trading for Todd Frazier? That seems like a popular idea. He's good offensively and defensively and under a reasonable contract for two more seasons. Of course that means he won't come cheap and if the Nats won't deal Giolito or Turner or Ross the Nats really don't have anything of value to offer other than bulk.
Oh and I've said it before but I think Stephen Drew will end up being the bench guy. Juan Uribe would be the ideal one for me, but could get starters money somewhere. Given his last few years, "Old Espy" as I'll call Drew for his power/D/nothing else combination, should be cheap. The Nats could do worse (and just did with Uggla!)
Outside the Box Suggestion : Trade Giolito for Arenendo. Pitching prospects are generally questionable. First on whether they can make it, and second on whether they can make an impact. Strasburg was more highly regarded than Giolito and he's been really really good but has gotten the Nats all of home field advantage in one playoff series. So even if Giolito manages to make the majors without suffering another injury and is really good, he's only able to impact the season so much. A great young power hitter though? That's more of a game changer.
Stupid? I'm trying to go outside the box here and there are a couple of things about Giolito that should be addressed. One is that in AA he didn't dominate. In 8 starts he merely did well. Now as a 21 year old in AA "well" translates to "really good" and no one thinks he isn't on a path to a major league rotation, but it does start to question whether he'll be top of the rotation and if so how long it might take for him to get there. Also he's only up to 117 IP. It's likely next year the Nats top him off at 140ish meaning that it's very unlikely he's an impact player for next year's Nats either. The most likely scenario at this instance puts him at having an #3 type season with less than 180 IP in 2017, not even 2016. If you think the Nats fortunes over the next few years are going to be driven by Bryce Harper, understand he could be gone after 2018. Meaning the overlap for great Giolito and prime Bryce might only be a single season. Is that enough to not go all in now for?
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Last year second base discussion : revisited
Second Base
Take : Right at the moment we were discussing it Danny Espinosa looked to be the starter with who the hell knows as the back-up, maybe Frandsen. But it didn't feel like the Nats were committed to this, nor should they be based on how Espinosa had hit in 2014, and how mediocre overall Frandsen was. Maybe Difo would play a role, maybe not.
2015 Reality : The take coming in was shown to be completely spot on. The Nats didn't trust Danny as a full-time starter, trading for Yunel Escobar. However, the never ending injury to Anthony Rendon forced a move by Escobar to the less demanding third base and Danny into an everyday role at second. He actually did suprisingly well, certainly to start the year.
Like I talked about in discussing next season, Danny was really good for the first half of the year, but couldn't sustain it and was, well, really bad in the second half - at least at the plate. You might blame the fact that Rendon came back and pushed him out of his role, but in reality he had over a month of bad starts before Rendon was back for good. For a guy in Danny's position (re: deemed not starter worthy in offseason) hitting .198 / .245 / .297 for over a month, will, and should, lose you your spot. So, as often as certain people said "Danny deserves to play! He's been so good!" they were basing that off the memories of Spring, not the realities of Summer.
When Rendon came back initially in early June (from the knee issues) he was ok but then he went out again with a strained quad. When he came back from that in late July, he struggled terribly. He hit .200 / .274 / .271 for almost a month. Then he turned it on again for an equal amount of time (.364 / .442 / .525) before limping to the finish line over the last 2 weeks plus (.151 / .242 / .226).
In totality 2B ended up being a slight negative for the Nats. Danny gave the Nats 60 games of solid play, and Rendon another 40 good to great, but the remaining 60 or so combined were god awful at the plate. Defensively, Danny was good but a hampered Rendon was not and he played like 35% of the innings there (Danny played like 45%) so the Nats couldn't make up the offensive issues with great D.
Hmmm that doesn't seem right. It still seems like the Nats should be around average at secon... Oh I nearly forgot! Coming into the year the didn't like Frandsen and they did let him go. Difo didn't play a role. Instead Mike Rizzo made arguably his biggest mistake* and brought in Dan Uggla for a last man on the bench role that grew to a starting role for a week, and a spot starting role through mid May. All in all he'd end up playing about 15% of the time at 2nd base. Dan Uggla is a garbage fielder and couldn't hit. That dragged the position down like an anchor.
I noted I wanted Zobrist. I was not alone in this want and frankly we were all right again. He would have been perfect. Que era, era.
Out of the box : Move Rendon back was the idea and get a third baseman. In practice this ended up happening but the theory would have had them grabbing a real 3B in the offseason. Would it have worked? Depends on the 3B they got. I wasn't picky, but to summarize quickly based on last year's performance -
Trade for Beltre : Couldn't happen, Texas wasn't selling. Would have been good though
Sign Sandoval : Could have happened, FA. Would have been huge mistake and an albatross contract
Trade for Donaldson : Could have happened, A's did sell. Would have been awesome, perhaps season changing.
Sign Headley super cheap: Couldn't have happened, Yanks paid him. Would have maybe made things a tiny bit better, mostly by dominoing Uggla out of the picture.
Sign Ramirez cheap : Couldn't have happened, Brewers and him picked up mutual option. Would have changed nothing.
So the Nats could have either saved the season or plunged it into even worse chaos. Good to know.
*did other things not work out and have more impact? Sure. But come on Uggla was and is terrible and was only picked up to rub it in the Braves face while helping a friend out. You know why players should be on rosters? Because they can play? You know why players shouldn't be on rosters? To rub it in other team's faces or to help out friends
Take : Right at the moment we were discussing it Danny Espinosa looked to be the starter with who the hell knows as the back-up, maybe Frandsen. But it didn't feel like the Nats were committed to this, nor should they be based on how Espinosa had hit in 2014, and how mediocre overall Frandsen was. Maybe Difo would play a role, maybe not.
2015 Reality : The take coming in was shown to be completely spot on. The Nats didn't trust Danny as a full-time starter, trading for Yunel Escobar. However, the never ending injury to Anthony Rendon forced a move by Escobar to the less demanding third base and Danny into an everyday role at second. He actually did suprisingly well, certainly to start the year.
Like I talked about in discussing next season, Danny was really good for the first half of the year, but couldn't sustain it and was, well, really bad in the second half - at least at the plate. You might blame the fact that Rendon came back and pushed him out of his role, but in reality he had over a month of bad starts before Rendon was back for good. For a guy in Danny's position (re: deemed not starter worthy in offseason) hitting .198 / .245 / .297 for over a month, will, and should, lose you your spot. So, as often as certain people said "Danny deserves to play! He's been so good!" they were basing that off the memories of Spring, not the realities of Summer.
When Rendon came back initially in early June (from the knee issues) he was ok but then he went out again with a strained quad. When he came back from that in late July, he struggled terribly. He hit .200 / .274 / .271 for almost a month. Then he turned it on again for an equal amount of time (.364 / .442 / .525) before limping to the finish line over the last 2 weeks plus (.151 / .242 / .226).
In totality 2B ended up being a slight negative for the Nats. Danny gave the Nats 60 games of solid play, and Rendon another 40 good to great, but the remaining 60 or so combined were god awful at the plate. Defensively, Danny was good but a hampered Rendon was not and he played like 35% of the innings there (Danny played like 45%) so the Nats couldn't make up the offensive issues with great D.
Hmmm that doesn't seem right. It still seems like the Nats should be around average at secon... Oh I nearly forgot! Coming into the year the didn't like Frandsen and they did let him go. Difo didn't play a role. Instead Mike Rizzo made arguably his biggest mistake* and brought in Dan Uggla for a last man on the bench role that grew to a starting role for a week, and a spot starting role through mid May. All in all he'd end up playing about 15% of the time at 2nd base. Dan Uggla is a garbage fielder and couldn't hit. That dragged the position down like an anchor.
I noted I wanted Zobrist. I was not alone in this want and frankly we were all right again. He would have been perfect. Que era, era.
Out of the box : Move Rendon back was the idea and get a third baseman. In practice this ended up happening but the theory would have had them grabbing a real 3B in the offseason. Would it have worked? Depends on the 3B they got. I wasn't picky, but to summarize quickly based on last year's performance -
Trade for Beltre : Couldn't happen, Texas wasn't selling. Would have been good though
Sign Sandoval : Could have happened, FA. Would have been huge mistake and an albatross contract
Trade for Donaldson : Could have happened, A's did sell. Would have been awesome, perhaps season changing.
Sign Headley super cheap: Couldn't have happened, Yanks paid him. Would have maybe made things a tiny bit better, mostly by dominoing Uggla out of the picture.
Sign Ramirez cheap : Couldn't have happened, Brewers and him picked up mutual option. Would have changed nothing.
So the Nats could have either saved the season or plunged it into even worse chaos. Good to know.
*did other things not work out and have more impact? Sure. But come on Uggla was and is terrible and was only picked up to rub it in the Braves face while helping a friend out. You know why players should be on rosters? Because they can play? You know why players shouldn't be on rosters? To rub it in other team's faces or to help out friends
Monday, October 19, 2015
Offseason Position Discussion : Second Base
Presumed Plan : It's not 100% clear but the likelihood right now is the Danny Espinosa will play second.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : To break it down, the Nats have three guys for three positions. Yunel is sneaky bad in the field, with quickly disappearing range. He played SS before last year, but covered 3B this year when Rendon went down. Rendon is a natural 3B and prefers to play there, but can play 2B and has for most of his young career. Espinosa went through the minors as a SS, but has played 2B for most of his career, and as the best fielder of the three, is good enough to play 3B.
You could stick Yunel at 3B again, but they'd really prefer to get Rendon back there since that is where they expect him to play into the future. Give his range issues you'd think that SS would be the worst place for Yunel but with Danny over at 2B and Rendon at 3B Yunel would have some help on either side of him. Plus, Yunel played SS for a long time so he wouldn't have to learn anything new, something that he would have to do at 2B. So SS may actually the the best option.
Another reason to stick Yunel at SS is that he is only going to be here for a season more (he's a FA after next year) and there is a SS waiting in the wings in Trea Turner. Turner could conceivably force his way into the line-up in Spring, but more likely they will put him in AAA to get everyday at bats and let his performance there dictate when he gets called up. By putting Yuney at short you set up 2017's infield.
So Yunel plays shortstop, which means Danny plays second. Probably.
With the bat, Danny had a minor renaissance last year, getting back to his low average, fair patience, decent pop days from 2010-2012. That combination, along with his good defense, makes him a fringy starter and a good deal given he's still in arbitration. If he puts up a year like 2015 he's going to help the Nats more than he would hurt them. Plus Danny has been a healthy player, reliable to play a full season which is something the Nats need. "Securely ok" has more value for a team with a lot of "hopefully very good" on it.
Problems with Presumed Plan : In the field, you put your best fielder at SS. That's the position that gets the most work. So putting Danny at 2B is wasting him. And if Zimmerman's foot is better you'd probably have the same good defense on either side of Yunel as you'd have with him at SS, at a less critical position. Putting Yunel at SS might be overthinking it. You'd normally stick him at 3B or failing that 2B so maybe you should just do that?
As for Danny playing everyday, last season was really a tale of two halves. For the first half of the year Danny was resurgent. He was hitting as well as .272 / .356 / .471 on June 19th. That's Top 5 2B material. But he did nothing the rest of the year putting up a .205 / .259 / .341 line that's like worst 2B material and similar to what he did in 2013-2014. If he's that Danny, then he's a net negative for this team regardless of how he fields.
Also, while Trea Turner struggled initially he hit ok down the stretch and he fielded well. He hit .314 / .353 / .431 in 48 games in Syracuse last year. Is there really a point to putting him back in the minors? Do we really think Espinosa/Escobar is that much better?
My take : This is a tough situation and will roll into our SS discussion. If you are committed to playing Danny and Yunel to start the year there is a question : are the Nats better off with Danny at SS and Yuney at 2B or vice versa? The arguments can be made either way. Frankly I don't think it'll matter too much so stick Yunel where he feels comfortable so maybe you can get another good offensive year out of him, because if you don't he has no value. Plus I don't know what'll happen to Ryan and Clint will certainly not have good range at 1B so Danny can help with that too. That way you aren't gambling with a million singles through the 1B hole.
So Danny at 2B is the starting point for me. Then the concerns about the offense kick in. Is Danny capable of a full season of good hitting now several years removed from his injury? Is he really 2010-2012 Danny? Or is he 2013-2014 Danny? The difference is between a hidden gem, a nice player to have around, and an lineup anchor. Given that the totality of 2015 was "2010-2012 Danny" you do start there as well, but with far less certainty in that than that he'll be a good fielding 2B. The Nats have to have a plan in place in case Danny starts out the year struggling to hit .200 and striking out every 3rd at bat.
What is that plan B? Probably Trea Turner. I don't think they'll have him start the year in the majors and I think he'll hit in AAA enough that he'd be ready for a call-up any time. (We'll talk about it more in a few days but I think the Nats best bet is to sell high on Yuney and let Turner start, but that has no bearing on 2B as it is expected to play out). That does leave a question of who will be the bench 2B. Difo was unimpressive and then got injured, it won't be him. The Nats don't really have any one to bring up. Dan Uggla is a non-starter and Mike Rizzo should be run out of town on a rail if Uggla is back. I don't know, it feels pretty fait accompli to me that Stephen Drew will be on this team as a back up, Rizzo draft pick from the Diamondbacks and all. He has legit power and can still field so the Nats could do worse.
Oh, what would I do? I'd sign Zobrist. Just like I would have traded for him before 2014 and before 2015. He admittedly had an off-year defensively and a slow start but he still ended up hitting like he has his entire career and his positional flexibility makes him a perfect fit for a team that's likely to go into 2016 with a injury risk late 30s LF and a CF that couldn't hit in 2015. But at this point saying "get Zobrist" is like screaming into an abyss. No one is hearing that.
Outside the Box Suggestion : I'd say gambling on a year of Howie Kendrick wouldn't be an interesting take but chances are at 32 he'll get a decent multi-year contract from someone. It might be just 2 years but it'll be something. And Daniel Murphy is going to get something more than that. As much as it would be fun to screw with the Mets like that, he really is only a good player who's having a great series.
So FA is pretty much out, those 2 and Zobrist are easily the best, so now we're talking trade. An obvious trade target would be Ian Kinsler, who would labor for one-year a Tigers team that probably won't compete in 2016 but would be looking for a fast re-tool to make something out Miggy's contract before he either starts to decline or can't get on the field anymore. While the Nats should be an ideal trade partner - they should be trying to win in 2016 before the rest of the exodus happens and the Nats potentially revert to a .500 type team - trading away actual good talent has never been Rizzo's way so I can't see them making a deal with the Tigers, who'd probably want Turner or Ross.
So how about we stick Rendon at 2B and trade for a 3B? That makes the most sense to me. Rendon can play 2B, has played 2B, and if he hits he's an All-Star at the position. At 3B he's very good but far less impactful given the number of 3B that can hit. Tell Rendon he's a 2B from now on so get used to it and trade for a 3B instead. Todd Frazier is an interesting name - like Kinsler he'll be a FA after next year and plays for a team that will be out of the playoffs. Unlike Frazier though his team is in more of a long-term rebuild so might match up with the Nats. But that's not out of the box.
Trade for Evan Longoria. His contract is long and high but actually reasonable for a guy that hits ok and fields ok. He's played every game for 3 straight years, giving the Nats needed security and just might have a few years like his better ones left in him. Perhaps being on a team that's not looking at a big uphill climb every year and plays infront of some fans would rejuvenate him. The Nats may have to give up a lot in the deal but he would immediately make the Nats line-up better and provide a 3rd core bat going forward for the next wave of competitive Nats teams. That's something we can't rely on from Zimmerman, Werth, Espinosa, or Taylor - starters likely to be here in 2017. Even Turner is a rookie who may or may not catch on right away. The Nats need another reliable bat heading beyond 2016. Hell they need another reliable bat IN 2016. This would work.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : To break it down, the Nats have three guys for three positions. Yunel is sneaky bad in the field, with quickly disappearing range. He played SS before last year, but covered 3B this year when Rendon went down. Rendon is a natural 3B and prefers to play there, but can play 2B and has for most of his young career. Espinosa went through the minors as a SS, but has played 2B for most of his career, and as the best fielder of the three, is good enough to play 3B.
You could stick Yunel at 3B again, but they'd really prefer to get Rendon back there since that is where they expect him to play into the future. Give his range issues you'd think that SS would be the worst place for Yunel but with Danny over at 2B and Rendon at 3B Yunel would have some help on either side of him. Plus, Yunel played SS for a long time so he wouldn't have to learn anything new, something that he would have to do at 2B. So SS may actually the the best option.
Another reason to stick Yunel at SS is that he is only going to be here for a season more (he's a FA after next year) and there is a SS waiting in the wings in Trea Turner. Turner could conceivably force his way into the line-up in Spring, but more likely they will put him in AAA to get everyday at bats and let his performance there dictate when he gets called up. By putting Yuney at short you set up 2017's infield.
So Yunel plays shortstop, which means Danny plays second. Probably.
With the bat, Danny had a minor renaissance last year, getting back to his low average, fair patience, decent pop days from 2010-2012. That combination, along with his good defense, makes him a fringy starter and a good deal given he's still in arbitration. If he puts up a year like 2015 he's going to help the Nats more than he would hurt them. Plus Danny has been a healthy player, reliable to play a full season which is something the Nats need. "Securely ok" has more value for a team with a lot of "hopefully very good" on it.
Problems with Presumed Plan : In the field, you put your best fielder at SS. That's the position that gets the most work. So putting Danny at 2B is wasting him. And if Zimmerman's foot is better you'd probably have the same good defense on either side of Yunel as you'd have with him at SS, at a less critical position. Putting Yunel at SS might be overthinking it. You'd normally stick him at 3B or failing that 2B so maybe you should just do that?
As for Danny playing everyday, last season was really a tale of two halves. For the first half of the year Danny was resurgent. He was hitting as well as .272 / .356 / .471 on June 19th. That's Top 5 2B material. But he did nothing the rest of the year putting up a .205 / .259 / .341 line that's like worst 2B material and similar to what he did in 2013-2014. If he's that Danny, then he's a net negative for this team regardless of how he fields.
Also, while Trea Turner struggled initially he hit ok down the stretch and he fielded well. He hit .314 / .353 / .431 in 48 games in Syracuse last year. Is there really a point to putting him back in the minors? Do we really think Espinosa/Escobar is that much better?
My take : This is a tough situation and will roll into our SS discussion. If you are committed to playing Danny and Yunel to start the year there is a question : are the Nats better off with Danny at SS and Yuney at 2B or vice versa? The arguments can be made either way. Frankly I don't think it'll matter too much so stick Yunel where he feels comfortable so maybe you can get another good offensive year out of him, because if you don't he has no value. Plus I don't know what'll happen to Ryan and Clint will certainly not have good range at 1B so Danny can help with that too. That way you aren't gambling with a million singles through the 1B hole.
So Danny at 2B is the starting point for me. Then the concerns about the offense kick in. Is Danny capable of a full season of good hitting now several years removed from his injury? Is he really 2010-2012 Danny? Or is he 2013-2014 Danny? The difference is between a hidden gem, a nice player to have around, and an lineup anchor. Given that the totality of 2015 was "2010-2012 Danny" you do start there as well, but with far less certainty in that than that he'll be a good fielding 2B. The Nats have to have a plan in place in case Danny starts out the year struggling to hit .200 and striking out every 3rd at bat.
What is that plan B? Probably Trea Turner. I don't think they'll have him start the year in the majors and I think he'll hit in AAA enough that he'd be ready for a call-up any time. (We'll talk about it more in a few days but I think the Nats best bet is to sell high on Yuney and let Turner start, but that has no bearing on 2B as it is expected to play out). That does leave a question of who will be the bench 2B. Difo was unimpressive and then got injured, it won't be him. The Nats don't really have any one to bring up. Dan Uggla is a non-starter and Mike Rizzo should be run out of town on a rail if Uggla is back. I don't know, it feels pretty fait accompli to me that Stephen Drew will be on this team as a back up, Rizzo draft pick from the Diamondbacks and all. He has legit power and can still field so the Nats could do worse.
Oh, what would I do? I'd sign Zobrist. Just like I would have traded for him before 2014 and before 2015. He admittedly had an off-year defensively and a slow start but he still ended up hitting like he has his entire career and his positional flexibility makes him a perfect fit for a team that's likely to go into 2016 with a injury risk late 30s LF and a CF that couldn't hit in 2015. But at this point saying "get Zobrist" is like screaming into an abyss. No one is hearing that.
Outside the Box Suggestion : I'd say gambling on a year of Howie Kendrick wouldn't be an interesting take but chances are at 32 he'll get a decent multi-year contract from someone. It might be just 2 years but it'll be something. And Daniel Murphy is going to get something more than that. As much as it would be fun to screw with the Mets like that, he really is only a good player who's having a great series.
So FA is pretty much out, those 2 and Zobrist are easily the best, so now we're talking trade. An obvious trade target would be Ian Kinsler, who would labor for one-year a Tigers team that probably won't compete in 2016 but would be looking for a fast re-tool to make something out Miggy's contract before he either starts to decline or can't get on the field anymore. While the Nats should be an ideal trade partner - they should be trying to win in 2016 before the rest of the exodus happens and the Nats potentially revert to a .500 type team - trading away actual good talent has never been Rizzo's way so I can't see them making a deal with the Tigers, who'd probably want Turner or Ross.
So how about we stick Rendon at 2B and trade for a 3B? That makes the most sense to me. Rendon can play 2B, has played 2B, and if he hits he's an All-Star at the position. At 3B he's very good but far less impactful given the number of 3B that can hit. Tell Rendon he's a 2B from now on so get used to it and trade for a 3B instead. Todd Frazier is an interesting name - like Kinsler he'll be a FA after next year and plays for a team that will be out of the playoffs. Unlike Frazier though his team is in more of a long-term rebuild so might match up with the Nats. But that's not out of the box.
Trade for Evan Longoria. His contract is long and high but actually reasonable for a guy that hits ok and fields ok. He's played every game for 3 straight years, giving the Nats needed security and just might have a few years like his better ones left in him. Perhaps being on a team that's not looking at a big uphill climb every year and plays infront of some fans would rejuvenate him. The Nats may have to give up a lot in the deal but he would immediately make the Nats line-up better and provide a 3rd core bat going forward for the next wave of competitive Nats teams. That's something we can't rely on from Zimmerman, Werth, Espinosa, or Taylor - starters likely to be here in 2017. Even Turner is a rookie who may or may not catch on right away. The Nats need another reliable bat heading beyond 2016. Hell they need another reliable bat IN 2016. This would work.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Last year first base discussion : revisited
First Base:
Take: Gotta use Zimm but based on what we saw at the end of 2014, train Werth/Bryce to back him up. Sign Daric Barton and let Moore go.
2015 Reality : I actually wasn't betting on Zimm being that injured. He had missed significant time before but had always bounced back to play nearly a full season the year after. I was worried he wouldn't play well. Well it turned out to be the exact opposite. He played fine when healthy but wasn't healthy much of the year. He was playing with a bad foot for the first two plus months hitting .209 / .265 / .346, then sat out six weeks to get healthy.
Not that him being injured was that much of a surprise, though. It just wasn't my first worry. I still thought planning for "Zimm can't play" should have been a priority and it wasn't. However the Nats got kind of lucky as Clint Robinson blossomed and provided the Nats with a passable first baseman when Zimm was out. The Nats gambled with Zimm and lost but found $20 on the floor walking away froim the table.
But don't kid yourself - I do mean passable. For a first baseman Clint didn't hit all that well and the Nats had a below average first base situation this year. This could have been if not expected, then at least seen as a possible outcome. If this were the only failed back-up plan then the Nats might have done ok this season but we'll see it wasn't.
Tyler Moore did fail again in his trials but Daric Barton couldn't hit in AAA. So it's not like I can identify talent any better.
Out of Box : Trade for Edwin Encarnacion!
2015 Reality : Yeah, the Blue Jays weren't going to trade Edwin Encarnacion. They decided to stick it out in an AL East that seemed winnable and after going all in at the trade deadline - they won it. So good for them.
Still he would have been awesome.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Offseason Position Discussion : First Base
Presumed Plan : Ryan Zimmerman will play 1B backed up by Clint Robinson
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : When healthy Ryan Zimmerman can hit. He put up a .249 / .308 / .465 line this year, which in the ever declining offensive climate was above average. Assuming that was at least partly injury related it's fair expect a minor bounce back to his normal numbers. Say around .270 with 20ish homers in the baseball of today. That's good enough to play everyday on pretty much any team.
Because of various injuries Ryan Zimmerman can't play 3B anymore and given that the injuries are primarily throwing related, it makes the most sense to play him at 1B. He flashed some D, reminding us of his 2007-2010 heyday, but wasn't as adept as we probably hoped. Though that was almost certainly injury related.
Possibly most importantly Ryan stands to make 14 mill for the next 3 years and 18 mill after that. Those types of players play unless they are so bad you start to talk about sunk costs. Ryan isn't bad at all.
Clint Robinson, one of those career minor leaguers who hit well but for various reasons get blocked from getting a chance in the majors (calling Mr. Short, calling Mr. Rick Short), finally got his chance and hit in the majors as you'd expect. .272 / .358 / .424. Perfectly acceptable number for a full time player and a boon to be able to have on your bench. He's nothing special at first, but he can play the position and his lefty bat makes a good back-up for Ryan Zimmerman.
Other options are limited. Tyler Moore once again put up a terrible year in a bench role. Even if you believe he can hit, it's clear that he cannot be a bench player. As of today he can't push out either Ryan or Clint so unless both Zimm and an OF get injured he won't see consistent playing time. In other words, the place for him here no longer exists.
In the minors, they were keen on slugger Matt Skole, but an injury set back his career. As of last year he was putting up numbers in AAA that suggested at least another year there was probably the best course of action. If that doesn't excite you, I've got bad news for you. He's probably the best 1B prospect in the Nats system (they do have some players! Just not C & 1B)
Problems with Presumed Plan : Ryan Zimmerman can't stay healthy. He played 95 games this year, 61 last year, which combined isn't even a full season. His shoulder forced him off of third and along with that he fractured his thumb, strained his right hamstring, suffered from plantar fascitis, and strained his oblique. That's just in the past 2 years and doesn't cover the injuries that caused him to miss 60 games in 2008, or 60 games in 2011. Relying on Ryan Zimmerman at age 27 off of his second season with big time missed to injury was risky. Relying on Ryan Zimmerman at age 31 off of his fourth, the last two which were back to back is close to insane.
Plus while Ryan has been hitting when in the line-up he has been trending down, as you'd expect from a player his age. The trend doesn't suggest a bottoming out but he could easily just be average this year and a first baseman hitting average isn't a positive. His decent numbers this year ranked 13th in OPS for NL first basemen with at lesat 350 PAs.
Clint Robinson is a good back-up but since last year was his first full year in the majors we really don't have any security that he can repeat it. He is also going to be 31 next year (he's only 6 months younger than Ryan) so he too should be starting the downside of his career. And again - for a 1B his numbers are below average (he ranked 12th)
Still most of us have liked what we've seen from Clint, but his overall usefulness creates another problem. If the Nats lose an OF, it's likely that Clint would be first one in line to replace them as well leaving less security behind Zimm.
My take : What are you going to do? (I hope not to say that again). The Nats problems are ones of uncertainty. As I talked about during the trade deadline, if all these guys, or even most, come back healthy and hit, then the Nats are fine. But if they don't, the Nats need help. The question is, do you want to potentially waste money/talent, or potentially waste a season? The Nats chose to potentially waste a season and successfully wasted it. The same issues face them going into next season though right now at a lesser degree than to start 2015.
Unlike Werth or Rendon, Zimmerman ended the season injured and has missed a ton of time for two straight years. He's simply unreliable. The Nats should move on... but they can't. Even though his contract isn't onerous, they can't deal him because of the injury history. He has to stay. If he has to stay, he's good enough when healthy to have to play, and he can only play first so end of story. At least the offense isn't as bad as you might think from the raw rankings. (which is why I tell you to never rely on rankings without looking at the numbers) Zimmerman (and Robinson) are really 4th tier firstbaseman, below average but not so terrible.
Robinson makes sense as a back-up both in handedness and skill.
Unlike catcher, there is a potential FA that could make a big difference here in Chris Davis. The sheer power that he represents makes him a likely upgrade even if Zimmerman is healthy. He'd also represent a big lefty bat to protect Bryce. But he'll be costly and at some point his inability to make contact (3rd worst in majors last year) is going to catch up with him. Will it be at age 30 or age 34? That's the question. And if you do sign him, then what happens to Zimm? Super sub? Then what happens to Clint?
The Nats are in a bad position. They almost have to go with Zimm and Robinson and it's almost sure not to work in a way that the position will be a plus for the Nats.
Outside the Box Suggestion :
Unless the Blue Jays for some reason want to part with Encarnacion (who will be a FA after 2016) there isn't much available in trade. Votto is great but that contract is crazy and the rest that are noticeably better than Zimm aren't going to be traded. Hosmer maybe? I don't know. I don't see a good trade here that makes the Nats better at first.
So don't get better. Stay neutral. Trade Zimmerman for parts and insert Robinson in at first. I said Zimm was untradeable but that just meant no one was going to eat his full contract. The Nats will have to pay for some of it. But if they do eat some of it, they'll free up room in general. Where do you trade Zimm? To a team in the AL that's unhappy with their 1B/DH situation and is looking to win sooner rather than later. Houston is an interesting case, full of young talent and iffy in those positions. But I think the best fit would actually be our old friends in Seattle. Logan Morrison and Mark Trumbo are both meh at best and they don't necessarily have a lot of near-ready talent in the pipeline. So Zimm fits the bill for a team trying to get something out of the Cruz signing and Cano before he might fade into nothingness.
What can the Nats get for Ryan? Whoever the Nats want to take a gamble on. The Mariners have a lot of "should have been good"s that haven't panned out yet. While I don't see then getting a pitcher from the Mariners, Seattle does have a depth of seemingly failing power hitting OFs that the Nats could probably snag a couple of and kind of need. If you believe that Seattle is flawed in developing hitting talent (and it's not a crazy belief) then maybe you get a currently disappointing duo and hope the Nats can do something with these guys. (and maybe Rizzo mind controls them into giving up Tijuan Walker)
At this point you have to think because of injuries and now age Zimmerman could be a big nothing for the rest of his contract. As painful as it might be, you could argue it's time to cut bait. It may be he can't get back much this offseason, but another 70 game season in 2016 and you might not be able to get anything.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Last year catcher discussion : revisited
Last year I did this all at once, but I'll try something different this year, keeping the positions together and going a tad bit more in depth.
Catcher
My Take: Ramos, Lobaton and pray for health.
2015 Reality : Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to see this as a bad plan. Ramos had, for the most part, been a good offensive player prior to 2015 when healthy enough to play. Sure he dipped in 2014, but only to below average and you never could rule out injury being the cause. Plus he was only 26 and the thought was that it was simply him wearing down. He hadn't played that many games at C since 2011. Finally get him healthy and everything will be fine.
But it wasn't. Everything kept moving in the wrong direction even though he was healthy. That might have been ok but the second assumption, that Lobaton would bounce back a little, didn't happen either. He had been below average but passable for 2012-13, and honestly bad in 2014. But some of that had to do with being forced to hit lefties when Ramos went down. If Ramos stays healthy the domino effect would mean Lobaton could rarely come up against a LHP and thus would produce at a usable level again. Well that did happen, Ramos was healthy, Lobaton didn't face LHP (22 PA in 2015) but he still got worse.
Does Rizzo get blame here? Not really. If this was going to fall apart you assumed it would be because Ramos would get injured and Lobaton couldn't handle an every day job. That was the iffy part that Rizzo was gambling on. Unlike every other position, he actually won this bet. Ramos stayed healthy. But it didn't matter. Ramos hit significantly worse, and that Lobaton, given the chance to face only RHP, also hit worse. A surprise crash and a disappointment? Hard to plan around that.
Out of Box : Since a trade for Lucroy would likely be too rich for the Nats blood, what about a challenge deal for Hank Conger or Tony Sanchez?
2015 Reality :Neither of these guys would have been much of an upgrade over Ramos. Conger did show some impressive pop, but almost entirely at home in Houston. So he might have been more of a threat at the plate, but not that much more. Defensively he seems to be a hell of a pitch framer but meh otherwise. Tony Sanchez is more of a question mark as he never really made it out of AAA, thanks to Cervelli. But in AAA he did nothing to force the issue, and I have to think that would be unlikely to change at the major league level.
So Conger would have made the Nats better but it's not a slam dunk. Sanchez probably wouldn't have.
Catcher
My Take: Ramos, Lobaton and pray for health.
2015 Reality : Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to see this as a bad plan. Ramos had, for the most part, been a good offensive player prior to 2015 when healthy enough to play. Sure he dipped in 2014, but only to below average and you never could rule out injury being the cause. Plus he was only 26 and the thought was that it was simply him wearing down. He hadn't played that many games at C since 2011. Finally get him healthy and everything will be fine.
But it wasn't. Everything kept moving in the wrong direction even though he was healthy. That might have been ok but the second assumption, that Lobaton would bounce back a little, didn't happen either. He had been below average but passable for 2012-13, and honestly bad in 2014. But some of that had to do with being forced to hit lefties when Ramos went down. If Ramos stays healthy the domino effect would mean Lobaton could rarely come up against a LHP and thus would produce at a usable level again. Well that did happen, Ramos was healthy, Lobaton didn't face LHP (22 PA in 2015) but he still got worse.
Does Rizzo get blame here? Not really. If this was going to fall apart you assumed it would be because Ramos would get injured and Lobaton couldn't handle an every day job. That was the iffy part that Rizzo was gambling on. Unlike every other position, he actually won this bet. Ramos stayed healthy. But it didn't matter. Ramos hit significantly worse, and that Lobaton, given the chance to face only RHP, also hit worse. A surprise crash and a disappointment? Hard to plan around that.
Out of Box : Since a trade for Lucroy would likely be too rich for the Nats blood, what about a challenge deal for Hank Conger or Tony Sanchez?
2015 Reality :Neither of these guys would have been much of an upgrade over Ramos. Conger did show some impressive pop, but almost entirely at home in Houston. So he might have been more of a threat at the plate, but not that much more. Defensively he seems to be a hell of a pitch framer but meh otherwise. Tony Sanchez is more of a question mark as he never really made it out of AAA, thanks to Cervelli. But in AAA he did nothing to force the issue, and I have to think that would be unlikely to change at the major league level.
So Conger would have made the Nats better but it's not a slam dunk. Sanchez probably wouldn't have.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Offseason Position Discussion : Catcher
And so it begins. We go position by position, just like last year and the year before. What we assume the plan is and why, potential issues, my opinion, and finally an outside the box suggestion (if I can come up with one)
Presumed Plan : Ramos and Lobaton, right? I don't see anything else happening right now.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Catcher is primarily seen as a defensive position and despite being pretty bad at the plate, both Lobaton and Ramos were good defenders behind it last year. They lie somewhere between solid and very good defenders depending on what flawed catcher defense statistic you choose to use. Ramos is better in the typical way; blocking balls, throwing out runners. Lobaton is the better pitch framer.
Along with the defense, all the other incidentals are favorable. The two are still under arbitration and relatively cheap. Ramos should make about 5 million next year, Lobaton under 2. Both made it through 2015 unscathed. Both are on the younger side for catchers with Lobaton turning 31 in a week and Ramos a couple months into being 28.
You still might want to consider a replacement, but the Nats don't have an internal option. They like Pedro Severino's defense but the kid (turned 22 in July) has yet to put up a good offensive season in the minors. That's not a mark against him. Like I said, he's young. But it does mean he's doubtful to contribute in 2016. The Nats preseason favorite, Spencer Kieboom, went Kiebust in High-A hitting .248 / . 344 / .346 after impressive showing in rookie and A-ball last year. Don't like Kieboom's year? It was the 5th best offensive season by a catcher in the Nats organizaion in 2015 (20 catchers). Remove a couple of under 40 PA guys and it's 3rd best. If Severino doesn't start hitting it's a wasteland.
Free agency is a little better but not much. Matt Wieters is considered the prize but he can't stay on the field (100 games played since 2013) and has only flashed offensive skill. Arguably the best reliable offensive catcher available is AJ Pierzynski who will be 39 next year. Geovany Soto is ok in a pinch but at so-so defensively is he worth replacing Ramos for?
Problems with Presumed Plan : Man, they were terrible offensively last year. Ramos wasn't the worst regular catcher in the league but he was down there. His fair power was completely undermined by his inability to take a walk (21 in 504 PA this year), his issues hitting for average (.229), and his terrible slowness (another 16 GIDP this year). As bad as Wilson was Jose was worse, hitting .199 / .279 / .294 last year. These aren't isolated odd years but trends as both guys have been going in the wrong direction now for 2 seasons.
What do the fancy stats say? They say it's mostly deserved. Lobaton might get a few more singles but that's about it. Ramos is swinging and missing more and getting slower. Lobaton has likely aged to the point where he is not finding that modest pop that gave him an average offensive year back in 2013.
So if you stick with these guys you'll have one guy who might hit a homer, and a back-up who might take a walk. In other words you have a hole in your line-up. The only consolation being that about a third of the league has the same sort of hole.
My take : What are you going to do? As noted above the Nats minor leagues is barren when it comes to catcher. A normal team doesn't bring up a Pedro Severino but he was literally the best the Nats had at the time. Free agency is only slightly better. Signing Weiters is a fool's move. He can't stay healthy and he's only really had one impressive offensive season. 80-90 games of average offense is far more likely with him, yet he'll get paid on promise. No one else makes much sense to replace Ramos, either as a one-year signing or a long-term deal. AJ, who was good last year at the plate but bad the year before that and will turn 39 in December? No thank you. Dioner Navarro, with defense so mediocre the Blue Jays spent a fortune on Russell Martin? No thank you again. Geovany Soto, the 9 of clubs of all trades? I suppose, if you deal Ramos for something and need a couple year stop gap.
But really with Ramos developing into an actually good defender behind the plate I don't see how any of that is a better bet than giving Wilson one more go at it. He doesn't have to be good, merely average and he was average just a year ago. Maybe you give him more rest? He was pretty wretched in July and September. If that's your goal then you might look to replace Lobaton. AJ or a Brayan Pena as a solely lefty hitter would be interesting. But AJ will probably get a 1yr starting job somewhere and signing Pena is a tradeoff with terrible defense for a guy that's never actually been a good hitter, just recently better than terrible.
No by default Ramos and Lobaton wins out. Cross your fingers everybody.
Outside the Box Suggestion : This isn't really outside of the box, but let's explore trades. There are probably two good targets. One is John Lucroy, a fine catcher offensively and defensively making peanuts, who might be available because the Brewers should be rebuilding, because a slow start and an injury caused a dip in production this year, and because he's had concussion issues. However, it's still very likely it'll take an arm and a leg to pry Lucroy from the Brewers and the Nats aren't inclined to do that. So that leaves Derek Norris. He's not a particularly adept defensive catcher but has improved over time and despite an off-year last year, he's a much better bet to perform offensively than Ramos at this point. The Padres have a young catcher, in Austin Hedges, who is a fantastic defender and should hit so Norris will likely be available, if not this offseason then soon. So why not force the issue?
Ship the Padres Yunel Escobar (they were terrible at 3B), Wilson Ramos (they'll need a back-up C) and Storen (they were terrible in relief) for Norris and Melvin Upton. Why Melvin Upton? Well, you can't expect the Padres to eat all that salary (like 20 million or so) for nothing? Melvin brings back a hefty 15 mill for this year (and 16 mill for next) but he fills that need for an real live 4th OF that could play everyday if needed. If you can just assume the Braves time was some sort of self-induced fluke he'd be a perfect, albeit expensive, fit. The only other big salary guys are Kimbrel, who makes no sense for the Pads to trade if they are going to try to compete; Kemp, who should be a DH and is owed a ton; and Sheilds, who is older and has a ton of innings on that arm. So you suck it up, take on Melvin for more than he's wroth and take away the ultra cheap Norris (paid ~500K last year going into his first arb year) for the next 3 seasons.
You can actually see the Padres doing a deal like this if they want to sell on Melvin when they have the chance rather than risk a bad year next year and be stuck with 3 albatross contracts for 2017. This arguably would make them better, and if it doesn't this gives them 3 guys who will be FA after next year. The question would be - could they get something young and good for Norris by himself?
Presumed Plan : Ramos and Lobaton, right? I don't see anything else happening right now.
Reasoning on Presumed Plan : Catcher is primarily seen as a defensive position and despite being pretty bad at the plate, both Lobaton and Ramos were good defenders behind it last year. They lie somewhere between solid and very good defenders depending on what flawed catcher defense statistic you choose to use. Ramos is better in the typical way; blocking balls, throwing out runners. Lobaton is the better pitch framer.
Along with the defense, all the other incidentals are favorable. The two are still under arbitration and relatively cheap. Ramos should make about 5 million next year, Lobaton under 2. Both made it through 2015 unscathed. Both are on the younger side for catchers with Lobaton turning 31 in a week and Ramos a couple months into being 28.
You still might want to consider a replacement, but the Nats don't have an internal option. They like Pedro Severino's defense but the kid (turned 22 in July) has yet to put up a good offensive season in the minors. That's not a mark against him. Like I said, he's young. But it does mean he's doubtful to contribute in 2016. The Nats preseason favorite, Spencer Kieboom, went Kiebust in High-A hitting .248 / . 344 / .346 after impressive showing in rookie and A-ball last year. Don't like Kieboom's year? It was the 5th best offensive season by a catcher in the Nats organizaion in 2015 (20 catchers). Remove a couple of under 40 PA guys and it's 3rd best. If Severino doesn't start hitting it's a wasteland.
Free agency is a little better but not much. Matt Wieters is considered the prize but he can't stay on the field (100 games played since 2013) and has only flashed offensive skill. Arguably the best reliable offensive catcher available is AJ Pierzynski who will be 39 next year. Geovany Soto is ok in a pinch but at so-so defensively is he worth replacing Ramos for?
Problems with Presumed Plan : Man, they were terrible offensively last year. Ramos wasn't the worst regular catcher in the league but he was down there. His fair power was completely undermined by his inability to take a walk (21 in 504 PA this year), his issues hitting for average (.229), and his terrible slowness (another 16 GIDP this year). As bad as Wilson was Jose was worse, hitting .199 / .279 / .294 last year. These aren't isolated odd years but trends as both guys have been going in the wrong direction now for 2 seasons.
What do the fancy stats say? They say it's mostly deserved. Lobaton might get a few more singles but that's about it. Ramos is swinging and missing more and getting slower. Lobaton has likely aged to the point where he is not finding that modest pop that gave him an average offensive year back in 2013.
So if you stick with these guys you'll have one guy who might hit a homer, and a back-up who might take a walk. In other words you have a hole in your line-up. The only consolation being that about a third of the league has the same sort of hole.
My take : What are you going to do? As noted above the Nats minor leagues is barren when it comes to catcher. A normal team doesn't bring up a Pedro Severino but he was literally the best the Nats had at the time. Free agency is only slightly better. Signing Weiters is a fool's move. He can't stay healthy and he's only really had one impressive offensive season. 80-90 games of average offense is far more likely with him, yet he'll get paid on promise. No one else makes much sense to replace Ramos, either as a one-year signing or a long-term deal. AJ, who was good last year at the plate but bad the year before that and will turn 39 in December? No thank you. Dioner Navarro, with defense so mediocre the Blue Jays spent a fortune on Russell Martin? No thank you again. Geovany Soto, the 9 of clubs of all trades? I suppose, if you deal Ramos for something and need a couple year stop gap.
But really with Ramos developing into an actually good defender behind the plate I don't see how any of that is a better bet than giving Wilson one more go at it. He doesn't have to be good, merely average and he was average just a year ago. Maybe you give him more rest? He was pretty wretched in July and September. If that's your goal then you might look to replace Lobaton. AJ or a Brayan Pena as a solely lefty hitter would be interesting. But AJ will probably get a 1yr starting job somewhere and signing Pena is a tradeoff with terrible defense for a guy that's never actually been a good hitter, just recently better than terrible.
No by default Ramos and Lobaton wins out. Cross your fingers everybody.
Outside the Box Suggestion : This isn't really outside of the box, but let's explore trades. There are probably two good targets. One is John Lucroy, a fine catcher offensively and defensively making peanuts, who might be available because the Brewers should be rebuilding, because a slow start and an injury caused a dip in production this year, and because he's had concussion issues. However, it's still very likely it'll take an arm and a leg to pry Lucroy from the Brewers and the Nats aren't inclined to do that. So that leaves Derek Norris. He's not a particularly adept defensive catcher but has improved over time and despite an off-year last year, he's a much better bet to perform offensively than Ramos at this point. The Padres have a young catcher, in Austin Hedges, who is a fantastic defender and should hit so Norris will likely be available, if not this offseason then soon. So why not force the issue?
Ship the Padres Yunel Escobar (they were terrible at 3B), Wilson Ramos (they'll need a back-up C) and Storen (they were terrible in relief) for Norris and Melvin Upton. Why Melvin Upton? Well, you can't expect the Padres to eat all that salary (like 20 million or so) for nothing? Melvin brings back a hefty 15 mill for this year (and 16 mill for next) but he fills that need for an real live 4th OF that could play everyday if needed. If you can just assume the Braves time was some sort of self-induced fluke he'd be a perfect, albeit expensive, fit. The only other big salary guys are Kimbrel, who makes no sense for the Pads to trade if they are going to try to compete; Kemp, who should be a DH and is owed a ton; and Sheilds, who is older and has a ton of innings on that arm. So you suck it up, take on Melvin for more than he's wroth and take away the ultra cheap Norris (paid ~500K last year going into his first arb year) for the next 3 seasons.
You can actually see the Padres doing a deal like this if they want to sell on Melvin when they have the chance rather than risk a bad year next year and be stuck with 3 albatross contracts for 2017. This arguably would make them better, and if it doesn't this gives them 3 guys who will be FA after next year. The question would be - could they get something young and good for Norris by himself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)