ESPN: The confusing plan of the Nationals

[ZIM4MVP]

Jayson Werth's deal said 'win now,' but can they? Probably not. What's the plan here?
By Matt Meyers
ESPN Insider

Back in 2002, Jonah Keri wrote a column at Baseball Prospectus entitled "The Success Cycle." The piece is particularly relevant now in light of the recent major deals by small- and mid-market clubs.

A quick summation of the concept is as follows: "The cycle is a baseball continuum on which every team resides. To measure a team's place in the cycle, assess its talent in the majors and minors. Can the players in the organization, mixed with a few trade acquisitions and free agents the team could reasonably sign, yield a competitive team? More precisely, can the team expect to compete while its current core of major league players remain productive and under contract?"

No transaction better exemplifies two teams on opposite ends of the "success cycle" than the Kansas City Royals trading Zack Greinke to the Milwaukee Brewers for four cost-controlled youngsters. The Royals, who have the best farm system in baseball, can see their window for success is 2013-15, knew that Greinke would leave as a free agent before then and decided to deal him while his value is still high. The Brewers, on the other hand, have a powerful offense and mediocre starting pitching, and since general manager Doug Melvin knows that first baseman Prince Fielder and second baseman Rickie Weeks will likely leave next offseason via free agency, he decided to go all in for this season. Using the "success cycle" as a guideline, this trade makes perfect sense. Some teams' maneuvers aren't nearly as logical, however, which brings us to the Washington Nationals.

To put it succinctly: What are they doing?


No move this offseason had more people scratching their heads than the seven-year, $126 million deal that the Nats lavished on right fielder Jayson Werth. It was the ultimate win-now move, yet Washington has little chance of winning now. For starters, the Nats lost 93 games in finishing last in the NL East in 2010, and the second-best hitter on the team, Adam Dunn, signed with the Chicago White Sox as a free agent. Furthermore, their best pitcher, Stephen Strasburg, is likely out for all of 2011 after undergoing elbow surgery. Their top prospect, Bryce Harper, is just 18 years old and has yet to play a professional game. Also, the Nats have decided to move him from catcher to right field, which is Werth's position. So even if Harper lives up to hype and is ready to contribute at the major league level in a year, either he or Werth will have to switch positions.

For argument's sake, let's assume the Nats believe that they can win now; maybe GM Mike Rizzo believes that the team drastically underachieved last year, and that Werth is so much better than Dunn that he could make the Nationals a winner, even with Strasburg on the shelf. Seems like a stretch, but let's play along. If all of that is true, why then, did Washington trade Josh Willingham, who has posted an .856 OPS over the last two years, made just $4.6 million last year and won't make much more in arbitration this year? If you're trying to win now on a limited budget, isn't a remarkably consistent and relatively inexpensive player exactly the kind of guy you want on board?

Making things even more confusing, the Nationals were apparently in the bidding for Greinke and were considering trading closer-in-waiting Drew Storen and shortstop prospect Danny Espinosa for the 2009 AL Cy Young winner. The deal didn't happen because the Nats were on the list of teams that Greinke could veto a trade to, but that's another win-now move and jibes with the Werth acquisition but contradicts the Willingham trade, which brought back erratic flamethrower Henry Rodriguez and fringy right field prospect Corey Brown from the A's.

The Nationals are in dangerous territory here. These moves reek of the Pittsburgh Pirates at their worst, when they would sign a couple of "name" free agents to try to fool the fan base into thinking they were on the verge of contending but refuse to ever fully rebuild. The Nats spent a fortune on Werth, a 31-year-old who has topped 134 games played in his career just twice, and are no better off than they were on the final day of the season. Letting Dunn walk and trading Willingham suggest that you want to tear it down and target 2014 when Harper and Strasburg are your cornerstones. That would make sense. But signing Werth doesn't fit that plan, as he'll be in his mid-30s and in the midst of his decline while occupying a major portion of the club's payroll by the time Harper and Strasburg are ready to lead this team. And when they need big money reinforcements, they won't be able to afford them because of the albatross that is Werth's contract. Ryan Zimmerman, the team's best position player and face of the franchise right now, will be a free agent after the 2013 season -- when he is 29 years old. At the very least, the Nats will likely have to pay him as much as Werth. Are they going to be able to succeed with those two players occupying up to 50 percent of the payroll?

You can argue that the Royals didn't get enough back for Greinke, or that the Brewers are making way too big of a gamble on the 2011 season, but you can't say that those organizations don't have a plan. They know where they stand on the "success cycle." The Nationals, however, don't seem to grasp where they are, and it does not bode well for their future.

[sportsfan882]

Scary as hell indeed. What is this team trying to do?

[Evolution33]

Two things. I can understand why people are confused but it isn't too hard to understand. Jayson Werth is signed for 7 years. He isn't just signed for 2011 or for 2016 and 2017. Those seem to be the only three years people are focusing on in the contract. There is a vast middle ground of time when Werth should be good and Harper and Strasburg should be playing with the Nationals. Second thing. How does this move stink of what the Pirates do. When was the last time the Pirates gave out a contract that ranked in the top 20 in terms of length and money.

[Coladar]

Damn, I agree with this article 100%. This is the root, perfectly explained, for all my intense negativity the past month. Its nice to see someone else gets that the moves the team is making make little sense. On the one hand, they gear up for a run, on the other, they do trade prospects and lose a player who could help with the run. They are planning, clearly on making a run in the future ala the Royals. The problem is, they aren't doing it the way the royals are, or in a way that makes any logical sense. You make the Werth signing when you're ready to compete, not two years out. I think the writer hit the nail in the Pirates comparison. Moves to placate a fan base, nothing more

I hope, having it all spelled out far more perfectly than I can do, those that have bashed my views and their vehemence can at least get it, if not agree with it. This club is not doing things intelligently right now. Never mind the "Our nubbier one target and need is a #1 SP." and the end result of that promise, and huge hole in the team.

[UMDNats]

Since when does signing a FA to a 7-year deal mean, "win now?"

Maybe they signed him to a 7 year deal so they can have him in 2 years, when they intend to win?

We traded Willingham because we weren't going to re-sign him and Rizzo likes more athletic players. It makes sense from the team's perspective. Letting Dunn walk was a mistake (should've traded him at the deadline if you weren't going to sign him), but he also wasn't the prototype Rizzo likes out in the field.

I am still negative about this team's 2011 outlook (and  think, right now, we're worse than last year), but I can see a rhyme and reason (somewhat) to Rizzo's moves.

[houston-nat]

The Pirates' trademark is trading everybody once they get good.

I think the "confusing plan of the Nationals" is to rebuild now and win lots of games starting in 2012 and 2013.

[Coladar]

Since when does signing a FA to a 7-year deal mean, "win now?"

Maybe they signed him to a 7 year deal so they can have him in 2 years, when they intend to win?

We traded Willingham because we weren't going to re-sign him and Rizzo likes more athletic players. It makes sense from the team's perspective. Letting Dunn walk was a mistake (should've traded him at the deadline if you weren't going to sign him), but he also wasn't the prototype Rizzo likes out in the field.

I am still negative about this team's 2011 outlook (and  think, right now, we're worse than last year), but I can see a rhyme and reason (somewhat) to Rizzo's moves.

It does for any player. Risk of injuries. Risk of having a massive drop in performance as he ages. Etc. You sign these huge contracts to compete now, and expect they will hopefully work out.you can rarely expect to get better performance the third year of the contract than the first even though it can happen. You don't sign some guy for millions, get the best out of him when he signs and you aren't competing, then hope the odds are with you and he performs similarly without injury years down the road. And then if it doesn't work out later on, you're stuck with a guy who won when you didn't need him to and who is now a hole on your team, sinking money and underperforming when you need him to perform.

Thats all ifs and maybes, but it's also why you don't see teams sign huge contracts to FAs until they are ready to compete. You're playing a game of chance, with a potential massive downside if things go wrong, or you just wait and sign a comparable FA or trade when your team is in place. One is a smart move done by 90% of the FOs, the other done by the Pirates and now apparently Rizzo.

[Evolution33]

On January 14, 2004 a 77-85 win team signed the top right fielder on the market to a six year $82 million dollar contract. I wonder if that move confused people.

[Kevrock]

Two things. I can understand why people are confused but it isn't too hard to understand. Jayson Werth is signed for 7 years. He isn't just signed for 2011 or for 2016 and 2017. Those seem to be the only three years people are focusing on in the contract. There is a vast middle ground of time when Werth should be good and Harper and Strasburg should be playing with the Nationals. Second thing. How does this move stink of what the Pirates do. When was the last time the Pirates gave out a contract that ranked in the top 20 in terms of length and money.

This. Not to mention he makes a huge assumption that Werth and Zim would be 50% of our payroll. The Werth move and the attempted trade for Greinke means that no one should be making assumptions about what our future payroll.

He also assumes that Werth is going to be in the "midst of decline" in 2014, but I'm pretty sure that Rizzo made this deal with the belief that Werth won't decline as fast as most critics assume.

I didn't like the article.

[Baseball is Life]

I disagree with this article 100%. He is judging the entire offseason when it is only December. He makes it sound like we are done dealing.

For example, the prospects we got for Willingham might be flipped for SP or a 1B. Or we can sign a FA 1B with the money we saved by getting rid of Dunn and Willingham.

And what's so damn difficult about understanding that a RF like Werth or Harper can also play LF or maybe center in Werth's case.

Very shallow analysis by someone who is supposed to be an "Insider"

[PatsNats28]

The principle of the article is sound generally, but I think there was a reason behind the Willingham deal - he wasn't going to be a long term piece. The Nationals are trying to collect long term pieces right now. Werth and Zimmerman are two, as well as Desmond, Espinosa, and Ramos/Norris. On the pitching side, Strasburg, Zimmermann, maybe Lannan, and Storen qualify here. Guys like Willingham and Dunn have good production, but Rizzo doesn't want to resign them. Granted, I disagree with the reasoning... but the article states that the Nationals' plan is fickle, which I don't think it is. It's fairly simple - I just disagree with it (at least the way that they're doing it right now).

[PebbleBall]

I agree with the article if I'm judging the Nats as a small or mid-market club like the writer does.  I like the Werth deal as a player acquisition but how I feel about the money strictly depends on the team's payroll in, say, 3 years.  To me, the Werth contract has to signify an earnest jump to large-market payroll because I just can't see that deal working long-term if they want to remain a bottom 10 of 15 payroll. 

[Coladar]

The bottom line is that the ESPN guys can't accept that the Nationals aren't content with being a bottom-feeder.  ESPN loves when Boston and New York get every free agent so they can put a dozen of their games on national TV every year.  Teams like the Nats are supposed to remain "in their place."  Stupid article by another bitter ESPN hack.

I have to disagree. He makes a strong assertion that is damning. The way Kansas City is doing their offseason, and the way the Brewers are. We should be at a point where we are following KC fairly closely. As we don't expect to contend until 2013 in all reality. And yet our moves don't fit that mold entirely, its half in and half out. That's how you stay bad for long periods of time. As the article again mentioned, one team has followed the path the Nats are currently doing, the Pirates, and we all know that works.

[The Chief]

This article is stupid.

[DPMOmaha]

I understand the thinking.  Here's the thing, everything changed last August on a Saturday night in Philadelphia.  I really think they were going to try to win in 2011 before SS went down.  That got pushed back a year, but there were still a couple of pieces they wanted to get in place this year while they were available.  Rizzo can't just sit idly by waiting for 2012 to get here and has to keep molding the current squad to his philosophy, which Dunn and Hammer didn't fit into, at least long term.  Riz was able to get some of the pieces he wanted and missed on a couple others, at least so far.  There's still some time to move some more pieces and more moves to be made.  Mr. Meyers is welcome to his opinion, and he's right, that there is the possibility this all goes horribly wrong.  But that's not a judgment you can make before these pieces even get a chance to take the field together.

[Lintyfresh85]

I agree with the article.

I still can't quite figure out the rationale behind signing Werth... but then letting Dunn/Hammer go.

Rizzo, in my mind, is stubborn to a fault, and can't/won't adjust his "Athletes R' Us" roster building approach.

Thus, he lets two of his major talents go, because they don't look like athletes... and inks a major long term deal with a guy about to head into the twilight of his career... which goes against over 100 years of history, in terms of how players age.

[natsfan4evr]

They are not taking into account that this area is far from being considered small. The payroll will surpass 100 million within the next few years. This team is no Pittsburgh or Kansas City, whom have to rely on dumpster diving and trading away key components when their salary becomes too costly.

[OldNatsFan]

It looks like the Nats theory is to give up good offensive players like Dunn and Willingham to get better defensive players to help the pitching. I don't know if it will improve the win loss record this year but they had terrible defense last year.

[Lintyfresh85]

They are not taking into account that this area is far from being considered small. The payroll will surpass 100 million within the next few years.

Will it? Not to be LAC, but the Nats have not shown an interest in raising payroll... if anything, those that are LAC have evidence that they're lowering the payroll, since taking over.

It looks like the Nats theory is to give up good offensive players like Dunn and Willingham to get better defensive players to help the pitching. I don't know if it will improve the win loss record this year but they had terrible defense last year.

Maybe it's just me... but if we're going to have to lose a lot of games in 2011... I'd rather watch an excellent offensive team - terrible defensive team... over a terrible offensive team - excellent defensive team.

[shoeshineboy]

The bottom line is that the ESPN guys can't accept that the Nationals aren't content with being a bottom-feeder.  ESPN loves when Boston and New York get every free agent so they can put a dozen of their games on national TV every year.  Teams like the Nats are supposed to remain "in their place."  Stupid article by another bitter ESPN hack.

While I have serious concerns about what the Nats are doing and have done this offseason, I agree that this article seemed much more motivated by the pervasive ESPN attitude about non-BoSox/Yankee teams than anything else. He could have written the same article in one sentence: "The Nationals don't seem to know their place, and we at ESPN are confused by that."

[PebbleBall]

Maybe it's just me... but if we're going to have to lose a lot of games in 2011... I'd rather watch an excellent offensive team - terrible defensive team... over a terrible offensive team - excellent defensive team.

I'd rather watch whichever teams loses fewer games.

[natsfan4evr]

I agree with the article.

I still can't quite figure out the rationale behind signing Werth... but then letting Dunn/Hammer go.

Rizzo, in my mind, is stubborn to a fault, and can't/won't adjust his "Athletes R' Us" roster building approach.

Thus, he lets two of his major talents go, because they don't look like athletes... and inks a major long term deal with a guy about to head into the twilight of his career... which goes against over 100 years of history, in terms of how players age.

I do believe that they thought they were going to get Greinke and/or Cliff Lee, even if that seems like a pipe dream to the rest of us.

They need to lure free agents some way, because overpaying isn't always going to get it done. Werth is the prototypical Rizzo type, as close to a five tool player as one can imagine. I think speed on the base paths will help in a variety of ways. For instance, getting in the pitcher's head and causing him to throw a bad pitch; but more importantly being able to get from 1st to 3rd on a single to the outfield. I wonder how many times Dunn and Willingham crowded up the diamond?

The fact that Rizzo is doing as he preaches, makes me more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe his magic will shine through, or Werth could end up being albatross. Either way, it isn't like he went against what he's been saying all along.

[raleighnat]

I agree with the article if I'm judging the Nats as a small or mid-market club like the writer does.  I like the Werth deal as a player acquisition but how I feel about the money strictly depends on the team's payroll in, say, 3 years.  To me, the Werth contract has to signify an earnest jump to large-market payroll because I just can't see that deal working long-term if they want to remain a bottom 10 of 15 payroll. 

You've got it.  I think the big mistake in the article, and for most observers, is to assume Washington is a small to mid-sized market team.  The Nationals have the richest owners in baseball.  They don't have to play the "cycle" in the long-term.  I believe the Lerners will compete with the big boys when the time is right.  They just have to build up the core of young players and will supplement the roster with more free agents when the time is right/ they can be attracted to DC.  My guess is the Lerners are a bit tired of playing the "wait and build" game and being embarrassed.   They signed Weth b/c he fits Rizzo's mold and will be right in the middle of his contract when the time IS right - 2012-2015.

2011 may or may not see much improvement depending upon remaining moves...especially the acquisition of pitching.  But lets say 2011 is another tanker.  2012 is going to be a different story...you're going to have Strasburg in the number one slot pushing everyone else back to their appropriate spot. The homegrown core (Desmond, Espinosa, Ramos, Zimmerman)  will be intact and one year older.  Harper will be on the immediate horizon.   That'll be a much easier sell next offseason to get a big free agent bat and starter.  The Nats should be much more attractive b/c of the Lerner's money and the team's improvement.  This is not the Pirates.

The Nats just don't need to trade any young core guys for immediate needs just to improve on what is going to be a difficult 2011.

[Evolution33]

Werth: 10.4 Career UZR/150 in RF
Bernadina: -11.4 Career UZR/150 in RF 11.8 UZR/150 in LF
Willingham: -4.4 Career UZR/150 in LF
Ankiel: 6.9 Career UZR/150 in LF

[Natskins]

Yeah, I think the writer is missing the point that the Nats appear to be targeting 2012/2013 for becoming good and then possibly great. And in that timeframe, it's logical to assume that Werth will be a major contributor. And it's really no big deal that Werth would likely move to left when Harper is ready. I'm sure that's something they discussed with Werth during negotiations.

The premise that the Werth signing is a "win now" move is flawed. Did we sign him to a one or even a two year deal? No. That would have been "win now."

Having said that, it's going to be tough to sell another 90+ loss season in DC. Unless Rizzo has a few amazing tricks up his sleeve, it's really tough to envision this team finishing out of the cellar this year. Werth is a nice player, but he's not going to fill seats on his own.