The 2006 MLB winter meetings begin today in Orlando, FL and according to a report from Barry Svrluga, the Nationals are not likely to be players in the happenings this week. Svrluga highlights a very conservative picture:
“We’re not going to make short-term decisions to improve our team by inches,” General Manager Jim Bowden said. “We’re more interested in improving our team by light years down the road. We will always listen, and kick the tires on any and all transactions that might give us a possibility to improve our long-term plan. But we’re not looking for short-term fixes, because that could hurt the long-term fixes we really need to make.”
The message that has been the mantra of the team is building a foundation for the future through re-establishing the farm system and focusing on player development. There is no question the Naitonals need to resurrect a system that was emptied and ignored during MLB’s stewardship.
The underlying question I have is this.
How can the team expect rebuild its farm system given its proposed conservative strategy which eschews signing any free agents in the near term?
There is merit to this thought when it concerns the signing of Type A free agents. These signings would require the Nationals sacrifice draft picks they require to rebuild the farm system. But in the new collective bargaining agreement, Type B free agents no longer cost a signing team a pick of any sort. An example of this is the apparent loss of OF Jose Guillen to the Seattle Mariners. Guillen, a Type B free agent, will give the Nationals a first round supplemental selection. As of today, this means the Nationals possess five selections out of the first sixty picks in the 2007 draft. This should be valuable in their rebuilding effort.
However, what is puzzling is the Nationals decision to not over arbitration to SP Ramon Ortiz, another Type B free agent, who if signed elsewhere would have returned an additional top sixty selection in the 2007 draft. The reason given by the front office was a concern Ortiz would accept the offer and potentially cost the Nationals “a raise to about $8 million for 2007.” I can only conjecture there was a conversation with Ortiz (or his agent) that led to this supposition. There is precedent to unofficial handshake deals whereby a player will agree to refuse an arbitration offer and continue his negotiations. For a Type B free agent like Ortiz, this is done to allow the Nationals to protect their rights to draft pick compensation while at the same time not altering the market for Ortiz with other teams.
Another concern of this conservative strategy is that it leaves the Nationals in the future position of having to develop a farm system with only one selection per round in 2008 and out. At present, the Nationals have no one who will be a Type A or B free agent after the 2007 season and only Jose Vidro and Cristian Guzman have the potential of returning compensation as free agents after 2008. Update: Additionally, Felipe Lopez and Austin Kearns will be free agents after 2008. It would not be out of the question to think of them as Type A free agents, but one would expect the Nationals view Kearns and Lopez as part of the rebuilding effort in Washington. I’ve updated the table below with their compensation as projected Type Bs (erring on the conservative side)
| Draft | Estimated # picks Top 100 |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 6 |
| 2008 | 3 |
| 2009 | 7 (assuming four Type Bs) |
This is not necessarily conducive to a near term rebuilding effort as the most promising of prospects are typically selected early on in the draft. By signing middle of the road Type B free agents to one or two year deals, the Nationals provide themselves with a few opportunities. First, they can trade these players during the season for prospects, or, at worst, get the opportunity to stockpile draft picks with rebuilding in mind.
This is not a novel concept. Teams like Oakland and Boston have stockpiled draft picks recently and used this leverage to help restock depleted farm systems. In the Nationals’s favor, the man in charge of overseeing the scouting, Mike Rizzo, did an admirable job in the past for the Diamondbacks, armed with most often with no more than his own picks.
While there is certainly value in the plan underway, the Nationals may need to reconsider not jumping into the free agent market if for no other reason than to allow them to accelerate their development plans.
JammingEcono | 04-Dec-06 at 8:08 am | Permalink
Excellent analysis as usual, Brian. The Ortiz non-arb perplexed me as well. Even had he accepted arb, I doubt he would have gotten anything more than 1 year/$4-$5M. Even though that’s still probably significantly more than he’s worth, at some point the Nats are going to have to spend SOME money on free agents … right?
Brian J Oliver | 04-Dec-06 at 8:25 am | Permalink
Thanks JE - Well, if you read Kasten and Bowden’s comments, there may not be much if any dollars spent this week. The Nationals only have two open spots on the 40-man roster, so unless we see some transactions around the fringes, I’d say we may be able to cobble together a 25-man with what we see today
Chris | 04-Dec-06 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Great post, Brian. That’s something I was thinking about, too. Signing Type Bs has no real ‘cost’ to the team in terms of development since the picks come out of thin air. I don’t see what the harm is.
I, too, worry about how sending the kids out there to throw 150 innings each will affect their development. I keep thinking about the old Earl Weaver philosophy of kids cutting their teeth in long relief and through spot starts. The team really needs one or two veteran arms who can absorb 180 innings, even if they’re pounded. Ortiz would’ve been perfect in that role. He sucks, but he gave innings. What if Patterson gets injured again? (or when, I suppose!) Can the rest of the kids carry the burden?
Basil | 04-Dec-06 at 9:39 am | Permalink
Nice post, Brian. Very thoughtful.
I could be 100% wrong about this, but I think the deal with Ortiz is that you can get him or someone reasonably like him a month or six weeks from now, just as we did with Ortiz last year and Loaiza in ‘05. This ownership group does not seem above trying to save an extra million or two.
Brian J Oliver | 04-Dec-06 at 9:44 am | Permalink
Chris - Precisely. It’s a free pick if they were to offer arbitration to Ortiz. If the thought is to save money, I hope they use the Rule 5 draft to its maximum and grab at least an arm and a bat.
Basil - I completely agree that there is likely an Ortiz-type out there. My thoughts were more focused on maximizing the opportunity available with Ortiz potentially returning a pick if signed elsewhere. The ‘cost’ to another team of signing Ortiz would only be sliding every subsequent pick from round 2 on down one spot. The only thing I can think is that Ortiz made it abundantly clear that he would accept arbitration if offered. Subsequently your money savings thought came into play.
Ryan Sullivan | 04-Dec-06 at 9:44 am | Permalink
I find it insulting that everyone in the organization continues to tell the average fan that they cannot build the farm system while having a reasonable product on the major league level.
A pitching staff of Patterson (if he can stay healthy), O’Connor, Redding, Beltran Perez and Shawn Hill will lead to 120 losses and a dead fan base-
Basil | 04-Dec-06 at 9:55 am | Permalink
My thoughts were more focused on maximizing the opportunity available with Ortiz potentially returning a pick if signed elsewhere
Certainly. Not debating that part; I thought it was pretty canny. It could be Ortiz (or someone even cheaper?) turns in a healthy, solid season, and all of a sudden you’ve got a Type B next winter, achieved at very low cost.
But then you have to decided whether to offer HIM arbitration, and the cycle repeats . . .
Scot | 04-Dec-06 at 9:55 am | Permalink
No way Guzman will be worth any type of compensation after 2008 - not unless he comes back and has a couple of back-to-back career years. ‘m not counting on it happeneing.
But you missed 2 guys who probably will be type A or B FAs after 2008 - Lopez and Kearns. Ayala is also FA eligible after 2008, and if he bounces back to previous levels could be worth a comp pick as well.
Scot.
Scot | 04-Dec-06 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Ryan:
The Nats can’t have a reasonable product at the major league level. They just don’t have the talent available, and its got nothing to do with focusing on rebuilding the farm system. (well, indirectly it does - the Nats don’t have the talent available to have a reasonable product at the major league level because the farm system is so barren). The Nats could completely ignore rebuilding the farm system and throw all their resources into the major league team in 2007, and the Nats would still finish last in the NL East and below .500.
Scot.
Basil | 04-Dec-06 at 10:05 am | Permalink
Brian, another thing I’ve been kicking around is what is the point at which the organization can have “too many” early-round draft picks? (Or, perhaps better stated, when an extra one or two of them makes no difference, because not all of them will be signed.)
Do you think the Sean Black situation sheds any light on that?
Brian J Oliver | 04-Dec-06 at 10:27 am | Permalink
I thought about that but my take on that is BS. My gut feeling on Black was the Nationals were unwilling to go above slot on a HS pitcher. They went above slot on a bat, Stephen King, later. If there is a plan to rebuild the farm system, slot bonuses should not necessarily predicate minimizing your number of picks. It really should focus you on utilizing them effectively. If paying a HS arm above slot is not a consideration, then don’t draft a HS pitcher in a spot where he will demand more than slot (i.e. stay away from them in the 2nd-4th rounds). Use your #16-24 round selections to go after them with designs on seeing if they’ll sign at a reasonable price. Otherwise, I see very little reason for a team with the stated goal of rebuilding making roster decisions that restrict the number of selections that can be used to accomplish that goal
Ryan Sullivan | 04-Dec-06 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Scot-
We’ve been going around and around and arguing this point for a couple weeks it seems, especially on another posting board, but our offense is good enough to be middle of the pack in the National League, not bad considering the park we are in (and yes, I am assuming health from our guys), and our bullpen should/could be one of the 3-4 best in the NL. Patterson, if healthy, is a solid SP, and we should see reasonable results from Redding, Perez, O’Connor, or Shawn Hill out of the #4 and #5 slots. What do I consider reasonable from #4/5, perhaps right around 5-5.2 ERA, and 1.4 WHIP and pitching 6 innings or so per game.
With those assumptions, and yes they include some strong assumptions, the addition of two reasonable #2/3 SPs would give us the chance to win 72-75 games, which would be an improvement from last season and not going miles from the plan to build the farm system. I do not think adding a John Thomson, Mark Redman, Tomo Ohka type would break the bank (probably would cost $8-10 million for 2007) and would allow these young guys to see some time at their appropriate minor league levels. And if these young guys develop more quickly, great, trade these guys at the deadline for more prospects.
But they have not yet given above average resources to the draft, certainly they did not in the past draft, and they have made 1 significant international signing. So far, they have done nothing to show me, the fan, that they intend to improve either.
Scot | 04-Dec-06 at 11:53 am | Permalink
Ryan,
I think you’re vastly over-rating the Nats offense and bullpen.
Bullpen first, because it’s easiest. The Nats have Cordero, who is a good (but not great) closer, and they have Jon Rauch. And that’s basically it in terms of pitchers that you can count on. Ayala will probably struggle - the first year back after surgery is usually pretty mediocre. Ryan Wagner sucks, and has given little indication that he’ll ever be able to pitch effectively for any length of time (yes, he was good in August. But he was absolutely brutal in September). Who else do you count on in that pen? Bergman has good minor league numbers, but hasn’t translated that to the majors. Bowie had a flukishly good 20 innings, but he’s not that good. Booker? minor league journeyman who’s going to be mediocre at best. Zinicola? his peripheral stats in AA were ugly - I don’t think he’s anywhere near ML ready.
On offense, the Nats were just below average in 2006. And they’re losing Soriano, and replacing him with nothing, effectively. Johnson had a career year (both in terms of durability and performance) that he’s unlikely to repeat. Scheider should bounce back a bit, but he’ll still be below average. Vidro’s not going to get any better. Lopez did a good job last year showing that 2005 was probably a fluke. Kearns has good OBP and defense, but not nearly as much power as you’d like to see from a starting corner OF. Nook Logan in CF? Ouch. And there’s no depth - once you get beyond the starters, the backups are horrible. Right now, I’d peg the 2007 offense as above average at 1 position - 1B, if Johnson is healthy and bounce back. Average at 2B, SS (assuming Lopez), 3B and RF. Well below average at LF (casto) and CF (Logan). And an absolutely brutal bench. Add it all up, and I don’t see the 2007 offense being as good as the 2006 offense.
I honestly don’t see why you think that Thomson, Redman or Ohka are upgrades on Hill, O’Conner, Perez, Redding, Traber, etc. More expensive, sure. Better name recognition, yes. Better? Ohka is coming off a major shoulder injury and a horrible year. Thomson had injury problems himself, and had a bad year. Redman has been horrible for the last 2 years. And they’re not going to come cheap - I’d guess that it takes closer to $20M to sign the 3 of them than $10M.
To reach .500 in 2007, the Nats have to improve by about 130 runs (either more runs scored or fewer runs allowed). I see them dropping by 20-30 runs or so on offense. Will the pitching really be 150 runs better? Not with the names that are being tossed around. Add Zito, Schmidt and Matsuzaka and the Nats might have a shot at .500. That’s not going to happen, though.
Slightly below average offense. Terrible D, with a few bright spots (3B and RF) more than balanced by a couple of horrible spots (2B and SS if Lopez is there). An average or slightly better bullpen. And below average to horrible SP. Even adding Thomson, Ohka and redman, the 2007 Nats will be worse than the 2006 Nats. 2007 is going to be ugly.
Scot.
Chris | 04-Dec-06 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Scot, that’s a false choice. Nobody is asking for an either/or. Both are possible, and any resources devoted to the major league roster do NOT have to come from the minor league system. At a certain point, there’s only so much you can invest in the minors anyway. The real variable expense of the minors, and where you throw the single largest $$ around is in the signing bonuses for draft picks or Int’l FA’s. A dollar saved on the MLB payroll is unlikely to be applied to that. Instead, it would likely come from other places, most likely the team’s dividend to its shareholders. ;)
Scot | 04-Dec-06 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
Chris,
I’m not saying that the Nats have to choose between spending money on the majors or spending money on the minors. the two aren’t connected, IMHO. I think the Nats have evaluated the franchise, and determined thjat they have no choice but to spend money on the minors to rebuild the base of the franchise, and so they’re doing that. And they independently evaluated the major league team, and concluded that there’s so little talent there and so little available talent that they can afford that there’s not really a big difference between spending money or not spending money at the major league level in 2007. I agree with the line that there’s not much difference between winning 65 or winning 75 in 2007, and I think those are the realistic options that the Nats have. Without adding any more talent, the Nats could lose 100, but they won’t lose 110 (and I think they’ll be closer to 95). By throwing $20M at mediocre FAs they might be able to add 10 wins or so, taking them from 95-105 losses to 85-95 losses. They’re still going to finish last in the NL East. The Nats are choosing not to spend money on the ML roster not because they’re spending it on the farm instead, but because spending money at the major league level won’t make a difference.
As much as fans are crying now that the team has to bring in some FAs or alienate the fanbase, when the season actually starts what matters is wins and losses, and none of the FAs the Nats could acquire are going to make much of a difference in terms of wins and losses. 2007 is going to be ugly, no matter what the Nats front office does. The bill for years of neglect of the franchise by the previous owners is finally coming due, and it’s a bill that is going to take money and time to pay.
Scot.
Chris | 04-Dec-06 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
I won’t disagree with that assessment. I’m glad that Kasten’s finally coming close to admitting that publicly, instead of hiding behind The PLAN!
The fan who attends games is going to disagree with the statement that there’s no difference between 65 and 75 wins, even as the rational side agrees.
But anyway… I’m at the point where if they’re going to lose 90, which is likely, they might as well lose 110. Trade all their commodities: Cordero, Johnson, Schneider. IF they reallly want to rebuild, that’s the way to do it. Free Agency prices aren’t going to come down next year or the year after, and it’s still going to be 3-4 years before the system is producing viable, league-average performers, the kinds of players you need to have a winning team.
Scot | 04-Dec-06 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
Chris,
from my perspective, as a fan, there really isn’t much difference between a 75 win team and a 65 win team (and I’ve experienced a lot of 65 and 75 win seasons, unfortunately). You’re going to lose more than you win, and you’re not going to contend. As a fan, what I do during seasons like that is try to ignore the standings, and focus on the game itself. Yes, there are going to be a lot of ugly nights. And yes, it’s going to be painful. But in almost every game, you’ll be able to find something to be positive about - a good outing by a young pitcher. A nice defensive play. A good at bat. Zimmerman is still going to be fun to watch, if nothing else. During seasons like 2007, I try to not worry much about winning and losing or the standings, and just enjoy what I can.
And I’m with you - I think the Nats are at a horrible position right now, talent wise. They do have some decent ML talent right now, but nowhere near enough in the way of a supporting cast to legitimately contend. And by the time the farm does start producing, the good players currently in the majors are either going to be gone as FAs or on the downside of their careers, or both. Zimmerman is the only guy I wouldn’t listen to offers for right now. the rest of the ML players with value are FAs in the next 2-3 years anyway (Johnson, Kearns, Lopez, Patterson, Cordero, Schneider, vidro, etc), and I don’t see the team contending in that time span. I’d move any of them for a decent offer, either now or as the trade deadline approaches.
Scot.
Screech'sBestFriend | 04-Dec-06 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
Its well known that I am fully behind the rebuilding plan, and like the previous comment by Chris–I can find something interesting to get me excited about baseball in just about every game. Whether we win 65 or 75, really will not matter–they are not going to win anything soon. But Brian, in the original post, makes a good point, it doesn’t cost the Nationals anything, draft pick wise, to pickup one or two Type B free agent innings eating pitchers on 1 year contracts. If they are even decent, the team wins a few more games, fans might come back more often–putting more money in the owners coffers. Then, when they do leave, and hopefully, some of the younger talents develop–Washington will pick up a supplemental draft pick or two–helping the team win again-in the future. Its a no lose situation, on that front.
Great original post, and excellent commentary by many.
Ryan Sullivan | 04-Dec-06 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
Scot-
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because I still do not agree with your analysis, and obviously, you do not agree with me. I think our offense will improve, or at least stay the same this season, with the addition of Casto, the improvement of Schneider and Zimmerman, and full seasons from Lopez and Kearns. Yes losing Soriano is huge, but I think we will be above average offensively at 3b, 1b, 2b (assuming Lopez), average at RF, C, and SS (assuming Guzman hits .250-.260), and perhaps slightly below average at CF and LF (though I believe in Casto).
In the pen, Cordero is one of the best closers in baseball, and the combo of Rauch, Ayala, Ryan Wagner, and Saul Rivera is pretty solid set-up men, and the combo of Bowie and someone should fill out a damn solid bullpen, especially considering the home park advantage.
And I think there is a world of difference between John Thompson, Ohka, Redman type starting pitchers and the collection of retreads or never were’s that we currently have, but we’ve established that we disagree here. And I agree that there is a hardly a difference between 65 and 75 wins, but there is a huge difference between 55 wins and 75 wins, and with that starting staff, we have little chance of losing fewer than 110 games.
Will | 04-Dec-06 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
I think you are missing something in the comparison of Okha/Redman/whoever vs. O’Connor/Perez/whoever. Even if we assume that the two groups will provide roughly equal performance, there is a huge advantage to signing the guys in the first group. Let’s say our opening day rotation looks like Patterson/O’Connor/Perez/Hill/Redding. Inevitably, these guys are going to get hurt over the course of the season. Probably one will suffer from intolerable suckitude (even setting our tolerance level for suckitude incredibly high). How do we replace the guys who need to be replaced? Move Rauch from the bullpen? Fill with more trash like Traber? Potentially mess with Mock’s development and call him up from AA? As ugly as it looks now, it’s easily going to get a lot more ugly. I mean, I don’t even know if I can imagine how bad it would be.
If we sign two cheap free-agent SP, the starting rotation on opening day might not look any better, but by the middle of the year, it would.