you beat me to it. Was trying to figure out the right thread to put it in, maybe the Shiner's thread, but worth discussing.
I do think he's cherry picking some weird stats to make his point. Some are context free. For example, the Meneses / Soto comparison is just weird for going forward, which is what a contract is about. Meneses is nice, but to compare their power projection now, when he's been incapable of elevating any of his contact for homers, is nuts. Soto is having one of the 7 best offensive seasons in MLB in terms of wRC+ (and wRC), wOBA, OPS, OBP.
Thomas is having a nice year far exceeding his projections, so it is kind of fun to compare his 2023 to Soto - hey, they're tied in HRs at 14 after bad Aprils! - but, other than power, he's not as productive. Is there $35 million worth of difference between Soto and Thomas this year? no way. Is there less exposure to a collapse 10 years from now due to contract obligations? Absolutely. But does is by any stretch of the imagination say he's likely to have a better 10-13 year period than Soto? No way.
Bottom line is, as much as the Nats may have dodged a bullet by dealing several of the big guns from 2019 or letting them walk, is the current set of replacements - Candelario (who is only under team control this year), Abrams, Gray, Thomas - anything close to a contender? They will be lucky if 2 of those guys are on the next Nats with a winning record.
That's just focusing on the talent going forward. I think the better point is that there would be a lot of dead money had the Nats not made some prudent trimming decisions. They were an old team in 2019 that by 2021 could not be patched. Re-signing Scherzer was never on the table. Of all the big money deals, the two I'd like would have been Turner (who I think would have signed for much less had we negotiated in 2021) and Soto. But yes, signing big deals buys risk, as Stras and Corbin show.
