The Washington Nationals Thread: The Future is Near!

[Riggo#44]

29 minutes ago, bearrock said:

1.  Can't blame Turner on Boras.  Young stars don't sign long term deals before arbitration unless it is a great deal.  The point is not to save money, the point is to give yourself a chance to actually lock him up cause closer you get to free agency, more likely they are to test it.

Again, entirely different situation. We traded Turner because it made the most sense to do do. You completely missed the point there--Boras is not signing a deal that early.

 

30 minutes ago, bearrock said:

2.  Team was in contention mode before 2020 and 2021.  The rebuild mentality would not have been an issue for extension during those springs.

Again, completely ignores the point: Boras does not do these types of deals, ever.

 

31 minutes ago, bearrock said:

3.  You and I have been through this a few times now.  Nobody in baseball uses deferred money to the magnitude that the Nats do.  It's not even close.

Right, it also worked for a great run, so I am not going to complain about it. You can if you like, don't let me stop you.

 

32 minutes ago, bearrock said:

5.  Plenty of players fizzle after mega contracts.  But plenty contribute after too.  JD Martinez signed that 22mil per year DH deal and won the WS.  Altuve's contract didn't stop Houston from reaching the WS this year.  Freeman signed his 20+ mil deal 8 years ago before hitting arbitration.  That's a load of money too.  You have to pay people at some point.  If Soto at 22 is too big a risk, you might as well hang out closed for business on big FA bats.

 

There is a huge difference between those deals and mega-deals. Stanton was a mega-deal. Traded. Arenado was a mega-deal. Traded. Trout was a mega-deal. Non-competitive team. Tatis and Machado were mega-deals, likely prevented them from going after Scherzer and Turner. Harper was a mega-deal. Hasn't stiffed the playoffs in Philly. Lindor was a mega-deal. Flopped in his 1st year, Mets under .500. You think Gerrit Cole's contract is a good idea? Strasburg's?

 

If you can't differentiate the risk in a 5-yr/$150m deal and a 10+/$300m+ deal, this is a pointless conversation.

[bearrock]

4 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

Again, entirely different situation. We traded Turner because it made the most sense to do do. You completely missed the point there--Boras is not signing a deal that early.

 

Again, completely ignores the point: Boras does not do these types of deals, ever.

 

Carlos Gonzalez, Jared Weaver, Elvis Andrus, Jose Altuve, Xander Bogaerts.  I think I'm leaving out somebody.  A pitcher I think.

 

Would it have been tougher to sign a pre-arbitration extension?  Perhaps.  But Boras isn't the bogeyman preventing all extensions.  Pay market value or above for those arbitration years, you could get Boras to bite at the first "$500 million" mark.

 

Quote

Right, it also worked for a great run, so I am not going to complain about it. You can if you like, don't let me stop you.

 

Happy about WS =/= Can't criticize anything about the team.  Surely you don't think spending more money would've hurt the team's chances.  Heck, maybe if they maxed out the actual dollar payout to the cap (since deferred money creates room in actual dollar spent vs the cap), they could've won more rings.

 

Quote

There is a huge difference between those deals and mega-deals. Stanton was a mega-deal. Traded. Arenado was a mega-deal. Traded. Trout was a mega-deal. Non-competitive team. Tatis and Machado were mega-deals, likely prevented them from going after Scherzer and Turner. Harper was a mega-deal. Hasn't stiffed the playoffs in Philly. Lindor was a mega-deal. Flopped in his 1st year, Mets under .500. You think Gerrit Cole's contract is a good idea? Strasburg's?

If you can't differentiate the risk in a 5-yr/$150m deal and a 10+/$300m+ deal, this is a pointless conversation.

 

You're viewing mega contracts through recency bias.  Teams with recent mega deals are less likely to have positive record to look at because the time period is short (especially if you define WS as the barometer).  

 

Lot of the old mega deals are apples and oranges to Soto.  Pujols and Cano were post 30 deals.  Stanton was not the player Soto is (though that 25 mil per year becomes less of an outlier as years pass, just as 33 mil per year will be less exorbitant 10 years from now). Jeter and Arod didn't prevent NY from winning the ring.  And if given a choice between paying Goldschmidt 25 mil a year between 32-37 and paying Soto 33 mil a year between 22-37, I'm paying Soto every single time.

[Riggo#44]

11 hours ago, bearrock said:

Carlos Gonzalez, Jared Weaver, Elvis Andrus, Jose Altuve, Xander Bogaerts.  I think I'm leaving out somebody.  A pitcher I think.

 

Would it have been tougher to sign a pre-arbitration extension?  Perhaps.  But Boras isn't the bogeyman preventing all extensions.  Pay market value or above for those arbitration years, you could get Boras to bite at the first "$500 million" mark.

How many of those deals bought out 3-4-5 years of arbitration? Only Bogaerts, as far as I can tell. Boras isn't the bogey man preventing all extensions--just most of them. He is an asshole and full of ****. You're so desperate to be right, you literally pulled a contracts from more than a decade ago, which is flattering, really. Altuve had a year left on his contract, I think, probably wanted to stay in Houston, like Strasburg. So there are exceptions, even fewer exceptions have Soto's talent and buy out that many years of arbitration.

 

Last thing I'll say on this, again, stop, read: Yes, I want Soto to stay. Did you read that? Go back and read it again. Yes, I want Soto to stay and go the HOF as a Nat. But there is tremendous risk to signing him long term, the vast majority do not work out. That's fact. You can ignore, dodge, cry "recency bias," but that's fact. Over time, very, very few of them work out. We'll see with Lindor, Tatis, et al, but history is not in their favor. It's also my belief, so no real evidence behind it--whatever the Nats offer now, Boras believes he can get more in 3 years. This also heavily depends on what happens with the pending CBA war looming--which is going to be ugly.

 

Depending on where we're at in this "reload," it's much more likely he gets traded. Which, again, is not the death knell to franchises people are going full Helen Lovejoy over. A-Rod walked, Griffey was traded, Betts was traded. It happens, and it doesn't make us Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, or even Tampa (although I'd kill for their development team and process, they just keep churning out players).

 

This is the last thing I'll say on it, because we'll start to go in circles, and I have real work to do today. Feel free to reply, but I've said all I am going to say.

[bearrock]

33 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

How many of those deals bought out 3-4-5 years of arbitration?

 

Come again?

 

Quote

Only Bogaerts, as far as I can tell. Boras isn't the bogey man preventing all extensions--just most of them. He is an asshole and full of ****. You're so desperate to be right, you literally pulled a contracts from more than a decade ago, which is flattering, really. Altuve had a year left on his contract, I think, probably wanted to stay in Houston, like Strasburg. So there are exceptions, even fewer exceptions have Soto's talent and buy out that many years of arbitration.

 

This was you: Again, completely ignores the point: Boras does not do these types of deals, ever.

 

I give you multiple examples of why that statement is untrue and you blow your top.  🙄

 

If you meant extension with multiple years of arbitration left, then you'd be on better footing because I think Gonzalez was the only one with multi years left.  Pretty sure Bogaerts was 1 year till FA.  

 

But there's no reason why Boras would be more adverse to multi-year arbitration buyout vs one.  If anything, receiving market value money for 1st and 2nd arbitration years are a lot more valuable.

 

Quote

Last thing I'll say on this, again, stop, read: Yes, I want Soto to stay. Did you read that? Go back and read it again. Yes, I want Soto to stay and go the HOF as a Nat.

 

Who said otherwise?

 

Quote

But there is tremendous risk to signing him long term, the vast majority do not work out. That's fact. You can ignore, dodge, cry "recency bias," but that's fact. Over time, very, very few of them work out. We'll see with Lindor, Tatis, et al, but history is not in their favor.

 

Very few mega contracts work out because very few mega contracts are handed out to begin with.  Before the recent run of mega deals to mid 20's and below, there were very few mega deals in the couple of decades before.  And when you evaluate the contract through not only the lens of the player's production, but also the team's success, the numbers go down even more because you make the mega deal player responsible for things beyond their control (as you do when you somehow mind bogglingly cite Trout as an example of a failed mega deal.  Mega deals don't save terrible management or bad luck. Trout isn't responsible for his team's construction/bad luck with injury.  It's not like the Angels are not getting way above market value WAR from Trout based on his contract).

 

Quote

It's also my belief, so no real evidence behind it--whatever the Nats offer now, Boras believes he can get more in 3 years. This also heavily depends on what happens with the pending CBA war looming--which is going to be ugly.

 

Professionals of Boras' caliber don't just work off of the feels.  He has a good grasp of where the market is headed in two years just as good front offices would.  And then there's the value of the insurance that long term deal now provides vs long term deal 2 years from now, both from an injury perspective as well as CBA negotiation.  Everyone knows you get more dollars the longer you wait.  But it's always a weighing of risk/benefit. 

 

Quote

Depending on where we're at in this "reload," it's much more likely he gets traded. Which, again, is not the death knell to franchises people are going full Helen Lovejoy over. A-Rod walked, Griffey was traded, Betts was traded. It happens, and it doesn't make us Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, or even Tampa (although I'd kill for their development team and process, they just keep churning out players).

This is the last thing I'll say on it, because we'll start to go in circles, and I have real work to do today. Feel free to reply, but I've said all I am going to say.

 

Unsurprisingly, it's your strawman schtick again.  I'm not saying the Nats are screwed if they trade Soto or that Rizzo couldn't build another contender without Soto.  But Rizzo's job would be so much easier if he was given, year after year, the 6th largest payroll in baseball.  When you factor in all the deferrals, he was barely given a top 10 payroll even during the contending years.  It's really not a very controversial proposition nor is it much of an ask given the DC market.  

 

You keep grasping at any excuse to keep from criticizing the Lerners for not spending more.  Oh they were in top 5-7 payroll for a decade (not true).  Oh they can lose Harper, Rendon, Turner, cause they need to keep the next guy (well, looks like we're gonna keep none).  Oh we can trade Soto, we're still not screwed (Yeah.  But maybe it's just easier for the Lerners to pony up the cash to resign Soto.  Even at 33-35 mil a year, Soto likely exceeds the WAR value of his contract).

[Riggo#44]

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Unsurprisingly, it's your strawman schtick again.

 

If you say so. I mean I supplied a lot of historical evidence, you supplied "na ah!" Have a good one. I do like the subtle jab about blowing my top, though, when I'm the one acting rationally and looking at all evidence, rather than crying "LERNERZ ARE CHAPE!!!11!!" and spazzing about what might happen three years from now. But you do you, Scotty P.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Riggo#44

[Renegade7]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:07 PM, Riggo#44 said:

Thats not even remotely true. What small market teams dish out $210m for Scherzer, $245m for Strasburg? Are consistently in the top 5-7 in payroll for a decade? Add payroll for several years at the deadline? 

 

The franchise mentality is to invest in pitching at the expense of our homegrown hitters, that Werth contract was over a decade ago, and we use those contracts as an excuse for doing it. 

 

The last 3 years we have been declining in payroll, we've been 7th in 2020, 14th in 2021, and now 16th going into 2022:

 

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2020/

 

This doesn't sound like a plan to aggressively purse free agents to bounce back, if I was Soto, I'd be concerned as well:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/11/09/nationals-gm-meetings/

 

On 11/12/2021 at 8:07 PM, Riggo#44 said:

Houston just lowballed Correa and allowed Cole to walk. Boston dealt Betts. Chicago just unloaded Bryant, Baez, and Rizzo. Are they small market?

 

Are any of those moves part of a pattern that has concerned our best player?

Edited November 15, 2021 by Renegade7

[Riggo#44]

 

[Ball Security]

Howie Kendrick is taking a job in Philly’s front office.  Hate that it’s Philly, but best of luck to that man.

[mammajamma]

Something I've been wondering. Boras has made it known he won't let Soto even look at a contract until his free agency year. But everyone wants Riz to offer him 500mil now anyway, just to make a point so they can say they tried.

 

So my question is, would Riz even make that offer public knowing it might perturb Boras, and then you enter contract year a step back already? I know now they were negotiating with Trea last year, but they never made that public until after he was traded. So I'm wondering if they'd even make those offers public

[Dan T.]

Yes, please...

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

On 11/17/2021 at 12:31 AM, mammajamma said:

Something I've been wondering. Boras has made it known he won't let Soto even look at a contract until his free agency year. But everyone wants Riz to offer him 500mil now anyway, just to make a point so they can say they tried.

 

So my question is, would Riz even make that offer public knowing it might perturb Boras, and then you enter contract year a step back already? I know now they were negotiating with Trea last year, but they never made that public until after he was traded. So I'm wondering if they'd even make those offers public

 

Scott Boras is not going to let "his feelings being hurt" impact, in any way, his goal of getting Juan Soto the biggest and best contract possible.  That's called "being a professional" and Scott Boras is a pro. 

[Riggo#44]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Scott Boras is not going to let "his feelings being hurt" impact, in any way, his goal of getting Juan Soto the biggest and best contract possible.  That's called "being a professional" and Scott Boras is a pro. 

There is also very, very little chance he'll advise Soto to sign a contract before free agency. It's just not in his best interest. Anything the Nats offer now, I guarantee Boras thinks he'll get more in FA--and he's probably right.

[CRobi21]

 

[Warhead36]

I'd happily offer Soto $500 Mil over 10+ years right now.

[TradeTheBeal!]

If there was ever a guy to break the bank on, it’s Soto.  Even beyond the direct price/performance correlation, it builds the brand and makes the Nats a favorable FA destination/swag dealer for a generation.  And he’s only 22, a ten year contract is HUGE trade piece 5-6 years from now if it’s just not coming together.
 

Take a big sip.

[CRobi21]

If Max signs with the Mets...I will puke.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by CRobi21

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, CRobi21 said:

If Max signs with the Mets...I will puke.

 

Rather he go to the Yankees, that I can live with.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Everything is weird and gross.

[just654]

If Max goes to the Mets he is dead to me. In line with Harp.
Dude is a hero here. I understand it is a business but still.

[Warhead36]

1 hour ago, just654 said:

If Max goes to the Mets he is dead to me. In line with Harp.
Dude is a hero here. I understand it is a business but still.

Dumb take.

[just654]

8 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Dumb take.

He will ruin everything he was here at least for a bit. Look at Farve it took years for Green Bay to forgive him. 

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, just654 said:

He will ruin everything he was here at least for a bit. Look at Farve it took years for Green Bay to forgive him. 

Completely different situation. Favre dicked the Pack for years with the "I'm retiring, I'm not retiring" non sense.

 

Scherzer gave his heart and soul to the team.6.5 years. Mutliple Cy Youngs. A World Series championship.

 

But yeah, he's "dead to you" because as a Free Agent AFTER WE TRADED HIM he signs with the team that makes him the best offer.

[CRobi21]

Getting serious..

 

 

[just654]

1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

Completely different situation. Favre dicked the Pack for years with the "I'm retiring, I'm not retiring" non sense.

 

Scherzer gave his heart and soul to the team.6.5 years. Mutliple Cy Youngs. A World Series championship.

 

But yeah, he's "dead to you" because as a Free Agent AFTER WE TRADED HIM he signs with the team that makes him the best offer.

And when he gets booed at every start at Nats park besides maybe his first. I won’t say I told you so. 
 

he could have turn down the trade he had a full No trade clause. Yes I have a problem with a favorite player going to a division rival. With any of my teams. You put on at rival Jersey ur dead to me. Will that change after he retires more than likely yes. Resign with the dodgers he doesn’t need the money. But I will never understand chasing the money versus winning. 

[Dan T.]

Max will receive a standing ovation at Nats Park regardless of what uniform he's wearing.