I can't complain about what the Sahx did, although it does feel good to snatch Werth right out from under their noses. I also find it funny how big market teams like the Sahx and Mets complain about the Nats overspending...
Here's two things I don't get, and maybe you can help me on this. If you threw out the contracts, would you rather have Crawford for the Nats or Werth? Philly was going to lose Werth and not sign Crawford, so throw out that factor.
Would you rather have the younger, better athlete, regarded as the best defensive left fielder in baseball, who is dangerous whenever he is on base, maturing into a 20 HR hitter, an LHB in a park that favors lefty batter slightly, and has performed well for several years, or would you rather have a RHB whose spray charts show he might be slightly adversely affected by the ballpark switch, has performed well for fewer years but seems to be maturing into a star, has an RF arm, a very good athlete and a good but not great defender? To my eye, Crawford would have been better here, and Werth there, given their skills, ballparks, and surrounding line ups.
The Werth contract, being first, probably did change the market more favorably to ballplayers. I think there's somewhat greater likelihood of stranded costs in Werth's deal than in Crawford's, but I agree that for the franchise, the Nats had to run a bigger risk of stranded costs. I'm not sure there's a basis to "feel good about snatching" one from "under their noses," and I'd like to see a quote from anyone linked to the Sox saying they are ticked off about the way the Nats spent. When they lost Contreras to the NYY, there was broken furniture and pounded tables. There's none of that here.
