Werth to the Nationals

[UMFan83]

The Nationals make no sense. They are about 2-3 years (if their rebuilding plan goes right) from needing to sign a big named FA as a final piece. Having a guy making $15+ million on a 90 loss team makes no sense.

 

And he's not even a big name/draw that will put fans in the seats, like you would expect by signing this type of contract.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

The Nationals make no sense. They are about 2-3 years (if their rebuilding plan goes right) from needing to sign a big named FA as a final piece. Having a guy making $15+ million on a 90 loss team makes no sense.

 

And he's not even a big name/draw that will put fans in the seats, like you would expect by signing this type of contract.

 

Yea this really is a bad move.

[Northside Blues]

I can't really hate on the Nationals right now. Sure it's a poor deal, but with Strasburg out they need something to excite the fanbase. They won't win next year, but it's not entirely improbable that they won't be in a position to contend two or three years from now and Werth probably won't decline too much in that time.

[dew1679666265]

I can't really hate on the Nationals right now. Sure it's a poor deal, but with Strasburg out they need something to excite the fanbase. They won't win next year, but it's not entirely improbable that they won't be in a position to contend two or three years from now and Werth probably won't decline too much in that time.

 

The problem is this will cripple an already small payroll. Even if he's productive for 3 years, that's still 4 years of $15 million non-production. That's a ton if you don't have a high-end payroll. It'll severely limit any moves to improve the team they can make.

[shnsajax]

They have been trying to spend money and can't get anyone to bite. Don't think that's the right player to give that too though.

[JoshiQ]

The only way this works is if this year the Nationals play over .500 and then spend the same amount of money to go after another big FA. The next big FA may not cost as much since he might think there's a chance of playing for a winner. That's the only reasoning that makes any sense. And even that doesn't make sense.

[rocket]

i'm guessing werth wasn't interested in the nationals, so the gm asked what it would take for him to sign there, so werth throws out some ridiculous figure thinking the nats will stop bothering him.

[Northside Blues]

I can't really hate on the Nationals right now. Sure it's a poor deal, but with Strasburg out they need something to excite the fanbase. They won't win next year, but it's not entirely improbable that they won't be in a position to contend two or three years from now and Werth probably won't decline too much in that time.

 

The problem is this will cripple an already small payroll. Even if he's productive for 3 years, that's still 4 years of $15 million non-production. That's a ton if you don't have a high-end payroll. It'll severely limit any moves to improve the team they can make.

 

 

Zimmerman, Strasburg and now Werth are the only players the Nationals have signed after the 2011 season. That means this time next year they will only have 32 million on the books for a team whose payroll could approach 80m. They'll have more than enough flexibility. Granted they have arby guys that I am not considering but still it isn't an issue. This doesn't limit anything.

[erik316wttn]

I can't really hate on the Nationals right now. Sure it's a poor deal, but with Strasburg out they need something to excite the fanbase. They won't win next year, but it's not entirely improbable that they won't be in a position to contend two or three years from now and Werth probably won't decline too much in that time.

 

The problem is this will cripple an already small payroll. Even if he's productive for 3 years, that's still 4 years of $15 million non-production. That's a ton if you don't have a high-end payroll. It'll severely limit any moves to improve the team they can make.

 

 

Zimmerman, Strasburg and now Werth are the only players the Nationals have signed after the 2011 season. That means this time next year they will only have 32 million on the books for a team whose payroll could approach 80m. They'll have more than enough flexibility. Granted they have arby guys that I am not considering but still it isn't an issue. This doesn't limit anything.

 

 

How much is Harper on the hook for?

[dew1679666265]

Zimmerman, Strasburg and now Werth are the only players the Nationals have signed after the 2011 season. That means this time next year they will only have 32 million on the books for a team whose payroll could approach 80m. They'll have more than enough flexibility. Granted they have arby guys that I am not considering but still it isn't an issue. This doesn't limit anything.

 

Werth alone is close to a quarter of their payroll. Three players will be almost half their payroll. They're going to have to go cheap in a number of spots to make that work out. They're looking at about $2 million on average filling out the rest of their roster - that's not much room for any other impact players. Werth better stay good for the majority of this contract, Zimmerman better stay good and Strasburg better stay healthy, because they won't have the financial room to bring in any other impact players.

[dew1679666265]

How much is Harper on the hook for?

 

No more than $1 million through 2015.

 

However, Cot's shows the Nats' payroll at a little over $66 million last year. It's possible they bump that up to $80 million over the next couple of years, though. I still don't think they have any room for error, though.

[Northside Blues]

Strasburg accounts for two million. Zimmerman and Werth account for 30 combined. In order for the Nationals to contend they're going to need two plus bats in their lineup. If you can't develop the bats, you've got to buy them. Granted, they're also going to need another pitcher. There's nothing wrong with an 80 mil payroll team locking up 30 mil of that on 3-4 hitters. They have no choice. They can't contend without them. It's the premium you have to pay if you have not developed them.

 

For comparison.

 

2010 Reds had $45m (of a 75m payroll) locked up on four players (Harang, Cordero, Arroyo and Rolen). Not sure how much of Rolens contract got picked up. Another 7 went to Phillips. Sure it doesn't hurt that they only spent .5m on Votto, but the Nats certainly won't do as bad as the Reds did with Harang. Just think of Votto earning that money and Harang earning 500k.

 

The 2010 Rays had 30M locked up between Crawford, Soriano and Pena. Their payroll was under 70m. This is the best comparison because they had a lot of guys who were making 1-4m. They had 15 guys making 1-4m, which is something the Nats can still do.

 

In order to contend with a payroll of 80m you still have to pay give out premium contracts to guys. I'm not saying Werth was the right guy to do it on, but they still have to do it.

[Northside Blues]

How much is Harper on the hook for?

 

No more than $1 million through 2015.

 

However, Cot's shows the Nats' payroll at a little over $66 million last year. It's possible they bump that up to $80 million over the next couple of years, though. I still don't think they have any room for error, though.

 

I read somewhere it will be between 72-74 this year. A similar jump after next year puts them around 80 mil. There's no reason that a team in Washington DC can't pull down a 100m payroll if the owners wanted to. The Nationals are one of the most profitable teams in the league as it is. Don't have the 2010 data yet, but the 09 data gave them a $33m operating income, third highest in baseball. FWIW, most small market teams in contention run at ~10m. It's entirely likely that if the Nationals are very very close to making the post season and are only say a $10m-$15m player away from becoming a favorite in the NL East there's no reason they can't push their payroll to 90+. If they make the playoffs theyll get some of that back. Not to mention the seeds are there in Washington for the foundation of a mid to major market team. They're not playing in Pittsburgh - or even St Louis.

[Slugger_16]

I can't really hate on the Nationals right now. Sure it's a poor deal, but with Strasburg out they need something to excite the fanbase. They won't win next year, but it's not entirely improbable that they won't be in a position to contend two or three years from now and Werth probably won't decline too much in that time.

 

I can't imagine the signing of Jayson Werth would excite any fan base. The most interesting thing about Jayson Werth is how he spells his name.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't really hate on the Nationals right now. Sure it's a poor deal, but with Strasburg out they need something to excite the fanbase. They won't win next year, but it's not entirely improbable that they won't be in a position to contend two or three years from now and Werth probably won't decline too much in that time.

 

I can't imagine the signing of Jayson Werth would excite any fan base. The most interesting thing about Jayson Werth is how he spells his name.

 

Yeah, that is a terrible way to excite a fan base.

[dew1679666265]

In order to contend with a payroll of 80m you still have to pay give out premium contracts to guys. I'm not saying Werth was the right guy to do it on, but they still have to do it.

 

I don't disagree that you should pay premium price for premium players, but my point is Werth is not a premium player. I've said before it could work out well for 2-3 years, but that's $15 mil of dead weight looming on your roster for 4 seasons. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can afford a couple of those or more, a team like the Cubs can afford one, but a team with a payroll south of $100 mil cannot have dead weight on their roster.

 

With Werth, the Nats might hover around playoff contention while he's good. But they won't be able to give him much help while he's good and they'll have an albatross on their roster once he gets bad - and still won't have room to work around him with premium players. It looks better if they get their payroll over $100 mil and that might be part of their thinking, but I can't assume that when looking at the deal right now.

[jersey cubs fan]

In order to contend with a payroll of 80m you still have to pay give out premium contracts to guys. I'm not saying Werth was the right guy to do it on, but they still have to do it.

 

I don't disagree that you should pay premium price for premium players, but my point is Werth is not a premium player. I've said before it could work out well for 2-3 years, but that's $15 mil of dead weight looming on your roster for 4 seasons. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can afford a couple of those or more, a team like the Cubs can afford one, but a team with a payroll south of $100 mil cannot have dead weight on their roster.

 

With Werth, the Nats might hover around playoff contention while he's good. But they won't be able to give him much help while he's good and they'll have an albatross on their roster once he gets bad - and still won't have room to work around him with premium players. It looks better if they get their payroll over $100 mil and that might be part of their thinking, but I can't assume that when looking at the deal right now.

 

I would think you have to make that assumption, that they are going past $100m soon. But I would have made similar assumptions about the Rockies when they were handing out huge deals, yet they cut like $20-30m at one point I think.

[hawkeyecub]

Didn't Dunn want to stay there? So they chose Werth for 7/$126M over Dunn for 4/$55M or so?

[Backtobanks]

The Cubs can find a taker for Soriano the moment they're willing to pay 75%+ of his remaining salary and take garbage in return. Don't be silly and think anything else is realist-....oh, it's BtB. Nevermind.

 

I thought you would realize I was being sarcastic, but apparently not. Next time I'll post it in green.

[davell]

Didn't Dunn want to stay there? So they chose Werth for 7/$126M over Dunn for 4/$55M or so?

 

 

Yes. That's exactly why this was beyond dumb on pretty much all levels.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs can find a taker for Soriano the moment they're willing to pay 75%+ of his remaining salary and take garbage in return. Don't be silly and think anything else is realist-....oh, it's BtB. Nevermind.

 

I thought you would realize I was being sarcastic, but apparently not. Next time I'll post it in green.

 

Probably prudent given your reputation.

[Soul]

So they dump Dunn, acquire Werth...

 

 

....and will remain horrible.

 

 

 

Good job.

[dew1679666265]

I would think you have to make that assumption, that they are going past $100m soon. But I would have made similar assumptions about the Rockies when they were handing out huge deals, yet they cut like $20-30m at one point I think.

 

The only way this makes any sense is if they increase the payroll to $100+ mil - it still doesn't make much sense, but at least there's some reason to it then. However, it's taken them 10 years to increase payroll by 33 million. They'd have to do the same thing in 2-3 now.

[Little Slide Rooter]

With these insane contracts out there, one has to wonder if the player association will pressure Pujols to take some kind of monster money contract from the Yanks, Red Sox, or whoever rather than give the Cards a discount.

[JoshiQ]

With these insane contracts out there, one has to wonder if the player association will pressure Pujols to take some kind of monster money contract from the Yanks, Red Sox, or whoever rather than give the Cards a discount.

 

If Red Sox sign AGone to an extension (which I am almost definite they will), Pujols really will be interesting. I can't imagine him not re-signing with the Cards, but if he doesn't I don't know where he will go. Yanks have Teixeira and the Sox will have AGone. Both are guys that are too good with the glove to DH. Same can be said with Pujols for 1B. I just can't imagine the Yanks and the Sox staying out of negotiations with Pujols, though, just because they already have too many 1Bs.