Author Topic: Break up the Juggernaut: 2022 Trade Deadline thoughts, & rumors  (Read 4959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
I don’t think it has much to do with giving up. I think he’s wanted to pay guys and the Lerners have just made that difficult for him. I really don’t believe he wanted to trade Turner, Bell or Soto. I just don’t see him throwing the Lerners under the bus. He just takes the heat for things he didn’t want to do because of the owners refusal to pay anyone.

This. ^

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16118
  • pissy DC sports fan
So he grossly overestimated his payroll constraints?  Doesn't sound likely, and if it did happen, it's still consistent with someone who's mentally checked out.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
So he grossly overestimated his payroll constraints?  Doesn't sound likely, and if it did happen, it's still consistent with someone who's mentally checked out.
Don’t think that’s the issue. The Lerners decided they had a title and didn’t want to hang around after they realized the Strasburg contract was a mistake. Rizzo works for them. He can’t do major deals without them.  New owners will probably move on from him.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 18084
Rizzo has never had a budget.Each and every expenditure had to be approved by ownership.

Rizzo never fought for or truly embraced newer technologies that cutting edge teams use in player development.


Offline English Natsie

  • Posts: 288
  • It's baseball, Jim, but not as we know it...
If the assumption (and that's a big assumption) that the new ownership was in on this, then that is somewhat concerning - it sends a message that the Nationals aren't going to be a 'big-ticket' destination any time soon... :roll:

Online blue911

  • Posts: 18084
He’s also the textbook definition of the Peter Principle

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 60290
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
If the assumption (and that's a big assumption) that the new ownership was in on this, then that is somewhat concerning - it sends a message that the Nationals aren't going to be a 'big-ticket' destination any time soon... :roll:
Its really not that big an assumption.

What is the biggest asset in the Nationals organization? It was Juan Soto. Theres no way a sale goes through if new owners get caught unaware of this. And its not hard to understand why they would want the Lerners to do it.

They aint gonna spend huge. They're going to run the team like a small to mid market team.

Offline English Natsie

  • Posts: 288
  • It's baseball, Jim, but not as we know it...


They aint gonna spend huge. They're going to run the team like a small to mid market team.

Difficult to argue with that... ;)

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 34840
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
He’s also the textbook definition of the Peter Principle
Peter Griffin?

Offline imref

  • Posts: 37805
  • Re-contending in 2023
they certainly spent huge when they had the homegrown pieces to build around.


Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
they certainly spent huge when they had the homegrown pieces to build around.
They did. But this has been quite a fast and deep slide.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 37805
  • Re-contending in 2023
They did. But this has been quite a fast and deep slide.

yep. Again, the plan was to transition to a new core of Robles, Soto, Kieboom, and Garcia, which obviously didn't work out.

As some of the Post writers noted, we were in contention for a playoff spot at around the halfway mark last season before the wheels came off. Rizzo took one heck of a big risk blowing up the team rather than trying to patch another contender together for 2022. We could have gone into this season with Soto, Turner, Garcia, and Bell as core piece and filled in around them (obviously we needed starting pitching).

We'll see in 1-2 years if it pays off.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11158
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
they certainly spent huge when they had the homegrown pieces to build around.
Which is one reason I liked the Cardinals package personally. A few lower ceiling, higher floor players who could fill in multiple starting spots today. With the idea you could fill in gaps from free agency.

But if two of the five prospects we got from the Padres hit, it'll be a great decision to have gone with the higher ceiling package.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 37805
  • Re-contending in 2023
Apologies if this got posted already and I missed it: Dougherty writes about why we didn't trade anyone other than Soto and Bell:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/08/03/nationals-trade-deadline-nelson-cruz-cesar-hernandez/

In a nutshell, nobody wanted Cishek, Cruz, etc.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Its really not that big an assumption.

What is the biggest asset in the Nationals organization? It was Juan Soto. Theres no way a sale goes through if new owners get caught unaware of this. And its not hard to understand why they would want the Lerners to do it.

They aint gonna spend huge. They're going to run the team like a small to mid market team.

I don't know that 2 years of Soto is really that great of an asset.   The return was basically what that asset was worth.

Uncertainty is always a liability for big sales, and getting this settled probably makes it a more clean sale.   You have to believe that they try to settle the MASN mess for the same reason, because it is an even bigger question mark.

Offline English Natsie

  • Posts: 288
  • It's baseball, Jim, but not as we know it...
Dougherty writes about why we didn't trade anyone other than Soto and Bell:


(to the tune of 'Sailing', by Rod Stewart...)

We're the Nationals
We're the Nationals
No-one wants us
We don't care...

(just channelling my inner Millwall... ;) )

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Apologies if this got posted already and I missed it: Dougherty writes about why we didn't trade anyone other than Soto and Bell:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/08/03/nationals-trade-deadline-nelson-cruz-cesar-hernandez/

In a nutshell, nobody wanted Cishek, Cruz, etc.
They’re also assuming they will be out on waivers and can get that way.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 5105
They’re also assuming they will be out on waivers and can get that way.

Well, there's no reason to waive guys who don't lose games.  And Cruz wouldn't be picked up on waivers because the poor schlubs would still owe him $5 million.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Well, there's no reason to waive guys who don't lose games.  And Cruz wouldn't be picked up on waivers because the poor schlubs would still owe him $5 million.
Ok. I thought once you went into waivers they new team could pay whatever.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 37805
  • Re-contending in 2023
Ok. I thought once you went into waivers they new team could pay whatever.

IIRC, the claiming team is only responsible for a pro-rated amount of the major league minimum salary. He's got a $3 million buyout for next year too, I assume the Nats would be on the hook for that.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 34840
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
IIRC, the claiming team is only responsible for a pro-rated amount of the major league minimum salary. He's got a $3 million buyout for next year too, I assume the Nats would be on the hook for that.
I think that's for a guy who clears waivers.  A team claiming a guy on waivers is responsible for the whole remaining salary.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 37805
  • Re-contending in 2023
I think that's for a guy who clears waivers.  A team claiming a guy on waivers is responsible for the whole remaining salary.

that's correct, i misread the post.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Ok I’m assuming Cruz would clear waivers. And Cishek also.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 34840
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Ok I’m assuming Cruz would clear waivers. And Cishek also.
Cruz would. No one wants him bad enough to pay $4 million for the rest of the year and to be on the hook for a $3million buyout next year.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 5105
I think that's for a guy who clears waivers.  A team claiming a guy on waivers is responsible for the whole remaining salary.

This is correct.  If you claim a guy on waivers, you take his contract.  If he passes through them without being claimed, anyone can then sign him for a prorate of the minimum.