PDA

View Full Version : Nationals Sign Jayson Werth



RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 05:19 PM
7 year / 126 million

RedsBaron
12-05-2010, 05:23 PM
7 year / 126 million

Wow---$18 million a season for a soon to be 32 year old outfielder. Werth is a good player but he is not werth that much.

OnBaseMachine
12-05-2010, 05:30 PM
Carl Crawford is smiling from ear to ear right now.

WMR
12-05-2010, 05:33 PM
Are you freaking kidding me??!?!?

I am speechless. I am without speech.

membengal
12-05-2010, 05:36 PM
crazycrazycrazy.com

KoryMac5
12-05-2010, 05:39 PM
Second and third tier teams often have to overbid for guys like Werth in order to get them to sign.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 05:42 PM
Werth has played 8 years and had 2 good seasons, he'll soon be 32 years old.

Too steep of a price tag if you ask me.

1990REDS
12-05-2010, 05:44 PM
I cant decide whats more surprising. The years, the money, or the team that signed him.

BCubb2003
12-05-2010, 05:48 PM
Second and third tier teams often have to overbid for guys like Werth in order to get them to sign.

Yes, and then Scott Boras compares his guy and demands Jason Werth money.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 05:52 PM
The Nationals would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn IMHO.

GADawg
12-05-2010, 05:57 PM
The Nationals would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn IMHO.

Exactly...what are they thinking? I know Werth is an above average defensive outfielder but offensively he seems very streaky and I'd rather have dunn's numbers anyway. Either way I'm glad he didn't go the cliche'd way and sign with the Yanks or Sox.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 06:18 PM
Exactly...what are they thinking? I know Werth is an above average defensive outfielder but offensively he seems very streaky and I'd rather have dunn's numbers anyway. Either way I'm glad he didn't go the cliche'd way and sign with the Yanks or Sox.

Werth has averaged 5 wins above replacement each of the past 3 years. Dunn was a 1.5 win player as an outfielder and 3.9 last year as a 1B. Either way you slice it, Werth has been much more valuable as a player than Dunn. He's worth the money, right now, they're paying relative to Dunn.

I don't think this is a good contract, mind you. I think they'll get 3-4 good years out of him at most. But right now, they're better with Werth than they were with Dunn.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 06:25 PM
I'd rather have Dunn and pay him what he's making the next few years than to have Werth and have to pay him what he's making for the next few years.

PuffyPig
12-05-2010, 06:28 PM
I'd rather have Dunn and pay him what he's making the next few years than to have Werth and have to pay him what he's making for the next few years.

I'd rather Werth for the first 4 years, Dunn over the last 3 years.

In other words, Werth at $17M for 4 years is better than Dunn at $14M, but I ceertainly wouldn't want to pay those years 5-7.

MattyHo4Life
12-05-2010, 06:29 PM
Werth just signed for slightly more than Matt Holliday signed for last year. This is the reason why players want Scott Boras to be their agent.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 06:30 PM
I'd rather Werth for the first 4 years, Dunn over the last 3 years.

In other words, Werth at $17M for 4 years is better than Dunn at $14M, but I ceertainly wouldn't want to pay those years 5-7.

All I'm saying is I believe the White Sox made a far better deal than the Nationals did.

paintmered
12-05-2010, 06:31 PM
Scott Boras isn't the problem. GMs that cave to Scott Boras are the problem.

Joseph
12-05-2010, 06:34 PM
The Nationals would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn IMHO.

Way better off. The Nats just took one step forward and 5 steps back.

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 06:39 PM
So Adam Dunn signed for 4 years 56 mil and Werth gets 7 years for 126 mil. It seems the Nats were bidding against themselves.. Boston was offering 4 years. I doubt anyone was even in the same zip code, area code, or state for that matter as the Nationals.

JaxRed
12-05-2010, 06:42 PM
I don't think it will take 4 years for this to start going bad.

mth123
12-05-2010, 06:43 PM
So. in about 3 hours the Sox lose Werth and Gonzalez. I'm guessing they'll go hard for Beltre now. Maybe Crawford too.

MattyHo4Life
12-05-2010, 06:44 PM
It seems the Nats were bidding against themselves.

Isnt that how it usually works when Boras is involved?

oneupper
12-05-2010, 06:48 PM
Da Nats is Nuts.

GADawg
12-05-2010, 07:30 PM
Werth has averaged 5 wins above replacement each of the past 3 years. Dunn was a 1.5 win player as an outfielder and 3.9 last year as a 1B. Either way you slice it, Werth has been much more valuable as a player than Dunn. He's worth the money, right now, they're paying relative to Dunn.

I don't think this is a good contract, mind you. I think they'll get 3-4 good years out of him at most. But right now, they're better with Werth than they were with Dunn.

i'm not sure how these new fangled stats work but will Werth's numbers suffer replacing Howard, Utley, Ibanez, etc...with basically Zimmerman? Would Dunn's numbers possibly have been better with a better supporting cast?

hebroncougar
12-05-2010, 07:32 PM
Wow.......this ranks on par with the Zito contract IMO, monumentally stupid.

paintmered
12-05-2010, 07:49 PM
4 years/$60M would have been an okay contract. This is organizational payflex suicide.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 07:51 PM
i'm not sure how these new fangled stats work but will Werth's numbers suffer replacing Howard, Utley, Ibanez, etc...with basically Zimmerman? Would Dunn's numbers possibly have been better with a better supporting cast?

I think we pretty much know what Dunn is by now. While the protection issue could impact it, I doubt it's enough to radically change what a player is or isn't. I won't say having Howard, Ibanez, etc. around you in the lineup doesn't help, but Werth has been a real good offensive player and solid defender for the Phillies. I just don't see that changing on account of protection.

The aging issue is one that will probably manifest itself before the life of the contract. But I'm definitely not arguing in favor of the years, but rather the dollars right now.

blumj
12-05-2010, 07:52 PM
So. in about 3 hours the Sox lose Werth and Gonzalez. I'm guessing they'll go hard for Beltre now. Maybe Crawford too.
The Red Sox didn't lose Gonzalez, they always do this.

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 07:56 PM
This in my opinion raises the tag of Crawford.. and on a Reds front.. Bruce maybe. Now granted Bruce's numbers aren't that of Jayson Werth but Bruce has a better glove and is a step or two behind Werth on offense.

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 08:00 PM
The Red Sox didn't lose Gonzalez, they always do this.

I don't blame the Sox though.. Gonzalez is coming off of surgery. Work out a deal during the season.

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 08:01 PM
A Gonzalez is a member of the Boston Red Sox

Ghosts of 1990
12-05-2010, 08:03 PM
another shining example of why the Nationals will just never 'get it'.

traderumor
12-05-2010, 08:19 PM
So Adam Dunn signed for 4 years 56 mil and Werth gets 7 years for 126 mil. It seems the Nats were bidding against themselves.. Boston was offering 4 years. I doubt anyone was even in the same zip code, area code, or state for that matter as the Nationals.They weren't bidding against themselves, they needed to overpay to get a significant free agent to sign there. The Red Sox have something besides money to offer, the Nats only money. The strange thing is that I see Werth's past success contingent on being in a strong lineup. I think he is going to struggle being a main cog in the offense. Apparently the Nats think differently.

paintmered
12-05-2010, 08:23 PM
This smacks of desperation by the Nats front office to become relevant in the DC sports news cycle.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 08:28 PM
another shining example of why the Nationals will just never 'get it'.

In fairness though, you have to admit there's a double standard in baseball. It's kind of darned if you do, darned if you don't.

On one hand, people are upset if you don't go out and spend money on big time free agents. So when you do go out and do what it takes to get a player (unfortunately a mega contract), then you're crucified for over-paying.

The sad truth is that some teams, like the Nationals, probably have to overpay to get Jayson Werth. It's unfortunate, but if they give equal money to the Red Sox, Yankees, etc., those players will just go elsewhere. Yes?

I think this is a bad deal. But I have a hard time criticizing them for it. Their fans would be more upset if they didn't go out and make this deal than if they did. I imagine Reds fans are the same.

Look how bad the Reds get attacked for signing Cordero? It's an awful deal, no doubt. But in a time where the Reds couldn't get a top name through free agency, they at least did come through getting him. Too much money... definitely. But for the last few years the Reds were better off with him than without.

redsmetz
12-05-2010, 09:01 PM
Here's a link to a blog posting about the Werth signing:

http://www.masnsports.com/the_goessling_game/2010/12/more-from-the-nationals-on-jayson-werth-1.html

Rizzo said there's some uneasiness about giving any player a seven-year deal, but admitted that when you're at the Nationals' level, you have to offer longer and richer deals than a team like the Yankees or Red Sox would. And as for the length of the deal

It's a good read that looks at the deal with comments from Rizzo and Riggleman. I trust Rizzo alot. He's the opposite of Jim Bowden. I think the comment above bears out what another poster said earlier that teams like the Nats have to pay more to get free agents. That was us the last several seasons.

Time will tell and it may be a tad longer than will be good, but the Nats have to be replacing Dunn's production and making their team better. I'm not convinced though that this is a terrible signing that will bear no fruit. Again, I think Rizzo & Riggleman are both good baseball men.

Heath
12-05-2010, 09:08 PM
Just another signing of where you don't have to have a successful team to sign anyone.

Is Ryan Zimmerman going to be enough protection in the batting order?

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 09:31 PM
Jayson Stark -

The #Nationals offer on Werth was so far above everyone else that Boras didn't even ask other interested teams if they wanted to match it.

REDREAD
12-05-2010, 09:40 PM
Looks like this is a desperation move by the Nats to gain some crediblity. They did overpay. However, if Werth gives them 4 solid years, and the rest of the team improves around him, it might not be that horrible. I guess they are hoping Werth can be their Rolen.. I don't think I'd give him a deal that long though.

blumj
12-05-2010, 10:14 PM
In fairness though, you have to admit there's a double standard in baseball. It's kind of darned if you do, darned if you don't.

On one hand, people are upset if you don't go out and spend money on big time free agents. So when you do go out and do what it takes to get a player (unfortunately a mega contract), then you're crucified for over-paying.

The sad truth is that some teams, like the Nationals, probably have to overpay to get Jayson Werth. It's unfortunate, but if they give equal money to the Red Sox, Yankees, etc., those players will just go elsewhere. Yes?

I think this is a bad deal. But I have a hard time criticizing them for it. Their fans would be more upset if they didn't go out and make this deal than if they did. I imagine Reds fans are the same.

Look how bad the Reds get attacked for signing Cordero? It's an awful deal, no doubt. But in a time where the Reds couldn't get a top name through free agency, they at least did come through getting him. Too much money... definitely. But for the last few years the Reds were better off with him than without.
The Tigers did the same thing with Magglio Ordonez, and it worked out pretty well for them, they've contended and been able to attract free agents at market value ever since.

BearcatShane
12-05-2010, 10:26 PM
Brutus or anyone who defends this signing.. I'm sorry but this is an awful awful signing. I mean, I don't even know what to say. The Reds could give Votto that exact same deal right now and while I wouldn't rip it I would definately wonder if its worth it. But to give a 32 year old outfielder this type of money is absolutely insane in my opinion. 4 years 55 million is what this should of been.

RED VAN HOT
12-05-2010, 10:35 PM
I could not disagree more about a team like the Nats having to offer longer, richer deals. That is tantamount to saying that they must take greater risks. The Yankees and Red Sox can afford to take risks. They can overcome a bad contract. The Nationals cannot. Washington is putting together a good young team. The Werth contract jeopardizes that. They are going to have to pay up for their core young talent while the Werth contract is still on the books.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 10:36 PM
Brutus or anyone who defends this signing.. I'm sorry but this is an awful awful signing. I mean, I don't even know what to say. The Reds could give Votto that exact same deal right now and while I wouldn't rip it I would definately wonder if its worth it. But to give a 32 year old outfielder this type of money is absolutely insane in my opinion. 4 years 55 million is what this should of been.

But you're missing the point... if Washington can afford to pay it, aren't they better off with Werth than without? Isn't that the real objective here?

In 5 years, there's no doubting it might be $18 million down the toilet. But right now, they're trying to improve their club. They did that. They had to overpay.

OK so it's a bad deal. If they don't make it, they're down Dunn and they also don't have Werth. How does that help them?

In baseball's landscape, you have to overpay to compensate for the teams that have gigantic payrolls. I just don't know what you'd have the Nationals do. They're not getting better by not getting these players. So sooner or later, you have to spend money on good players and hope the contract doesn't burn you too much.

It's a bad contract, but it's a good player. Ultimately, that's the goal.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 10:40 PM
I could not disagree more about a team like the Nats having to offer longer, richer deals. That is tantamount to saying that they must take greater risks. The Yankees and Red Sox can afford to take risks. They can overcome a bad contract. The Nationals cannot. Washington is putting together a good young team. The Werth contract jeopardizes that. They are going to have to pay up for their core young talent while the Werth contract is still on the books.

D.C. isn't exactly Cincinnati, Kansas City or Milwaukee. The Nationals have more wiggle room to take this kind of risk. Their revenue is better than a lot of clubs because of their stake in a sports network along with the Orioles. If a team that can only budget $60-70 million errs on a player making $18 million, that's a problem because they'd be hamstrung. But the Nationals can probably afford to take that chance a little more.

They're not the Yankees or Red Sox, and for that reason, they do have to be more careful and make sure they commit to developing players. But I don't think they'll be poverty-stricken if this Werth deal is a bust.

RED VAN HOT
12-05-2010, 10:48 PM
D.C. isn't exactly Cincinnati, Kansas City or Milwaukee. The Nationals have more wiggle room to take this kind of risk. Their revenue is better than a lot of clubs because of their stake in a sports network along with the Orioles. If a team that can only budget $60-70 million errs on a player making $18 million, that's a problem because they'd be hamstrung. But the Nationals can probably afford to take that chance a little more.

They're not the Yankees or Red Sox, and for that reason, they do have to be more careful and make sure they commit to developing players. But I don't think they'll be poverty-stricken if this Werth deal is a bust.

That's a fair point. Perhaps, I overstated the risk of this particular deal. My criticism is aimed at the proposition that the Nationals must somehow outbid the Yankees and Red Sox for the services of top talent.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 10:50 PM
[QUOTE=Brutus the Pimp;2302720]But you're missing the point... if Washington can afford to pay it, aren't they better off with Werth than without? Isn't that the real objective here?

In 5 years, there's no doubting it might be $18 million down the toilet. But right now, they're trying to improve their club. They did that. They had to overpay.

OK so it's a bad deal. If they don't make it, they're down Dunn and they also don't have Werth. How does that help them?

In baseball's landscape, you have to overpay to compensate for the teams that have gigantic payrolls. I just don't know what you'd have the Nationals do. They're not getting better by not getting these players. So sooner or later, you have to spend money on good players and hope the contract doesn't burn you too much.

It's a bad move no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's still a bad move. I'm glad the Nat's made this move and not theReds.


.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 11:05 PM
It's a bad move no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's still a bad move. I'm glad the Nat's made this move and not theReds.


.

Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 11:13 PM
Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.

I can't argue with you like some Philadelphia Lawyer, all I can say is it's a bad move. Small to mid market clubs should always try to avoid bad moves.

RedEye
12-05-2010, 11:18 PM
Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.

I thought that folks were looking at the deal in the context of the recent Dunn deal (4 years, $56 million) and thinking "gosh, they could have had better offensive production for a fraction of the cost and fewer years." That's not looking at the deal in a vacuum--it's looking at what they perceive to be the other options that Nats had on the table a week ago. Werth is a good player, no doubt--but there is no way that the Nats should be spending that much money on a corner OF who is already 32.

Ron Madden
12-05-2010, 11:21 PM
I thought that folks were looking at the deal in the context of the recent Dunn deal (4 years, $56 million) and thinking "gosh, they could have had better offensive production for a fraction of the cost and fewer years." That's not looking at the deal in a vacuum--it's looking at what they perceive to be the other options that Nats had on the table a week ago. Werth is a good player, no doubt--but there is no way that the Nats should be spending that much money on a corner OF who is already 32.

BINGO!!!

Topcat
12-05-2010, 11:39 PM
Contracts a complete joke as should be noted as such.

Brutus
12-05-2010, 11:41 PM
I can't argue with you like some Philadelphia Lawyer, all I can say is it's a bad move. Small to mid market clubs should always try to avoid bad moves.

Philadelphia lawyer? All I'm asking is that if you make a blanket statement like, "it's a bad move," I would expect some reasoning why. That's all. Why is it a bad move? Is it too much to ask someone to expound on their rationale? This is a message board for discussion. What good is it to state something if you're not willing to explain it? You went out of your way to quote me saying, "no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's a bad move." So since you're willing to tell me I'm wrong, why not explain yourself?

Brutus
12-05-2010, 11:46 PM
I thought that folks were looking at the deal in the context of the recent Dunn deal (4 years, $56 million) and thinking "gosh, they could have had better offensive production for a fraction of the cost and fewer years." That's not looking at the deal in a vacuum--it's looking at what they perceive to be the other options that Nats had on the table a week ago. Werth is a good player, no doubt--but there is no way that the Nats should be spending that much money on a corner OF who is already 32.

OK but one is being paid $14 million, the other $18 million. That's not really a fraction. In fact, the general belief is that each win above replacement is worth between $4-4.5 million. Considering Werth's 3-year average is about 1.2 wins better than Dunn was at first base last year, it seems the money is actually worth it. Werth is a better player than Dunn so he's worth more money.

So again, the length is understandably long, but if you examine the dollars per year, this actually is a very, very fair deal. Werth is werth (pun intended) $4 million more a year than Dunn.

Ron Madden
12-06-2010, 12:01 AM
Philadelphia lawyer? All I'm asking is that if you make a blanket statement like, "it's a bad move," I would expect some reasoning why. That's all. Why is it a bad move? Is it too much to ask someone to expound on their rationale? This is a message board for discussion. What good is it to state something if you're not willing to explain it? You went out of your way to quote me saying, "no matter how hard you try to defend it, it's a bad move." So since you're willing to tell me I'm wrong, why not explain yourself?

I said earlier in this thread that I believe The Nat's would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn than to spend $126MM over 7 years for Jason Werth.

I honestly believe that, I had no intention to offend you by quoting your post.

Brutus
12-06-2010, 12:07 AM
I said earlier in this thread that I believe The Nat's would have been better off keeping Adam Dunn than to spend $126MM over 7 years for Jason Werth.

I honestly believe that, I had no intention to offend you by quoting your post.

I wasn't offended, and I had no problem with you stating you believed it was a bad deal. I just didn't get your rationale and was seeking an explanation. That's really all there was to it.

Something to keep in mind though, it's likely that since Dunn signed for $14 million, they would have had to given him more than $14 million or a longer deal than 4 years to get him signed. So if it had taken a deal similar to Werth, does that also become a bad deal?

RedEye
12-06-2010, 12:12 AM
OK but one is being paid $14 million, the other $18 million. That's not really a fraction. In fact, the general belief is that each win above replacement is worth between $4-4.5 million. Considering Werth's 3-year average is about 1.2 wins better than Dunn was at first base last year, it seems the money is actually worth it. Werth is a better player than Dunn so he's worth more money.

So again, the length is understandably long, but if you examine the dollars per year, this actually is a very, very fair deal. Werth is werth (pun intended) $4 million more a year than Dunn.

Wait a minute--now who is looking at the deal in a vacuum? Sure, if you are considering the deal just for 2011, Werth at $18 million and Dunn at $14 million might make some kind of sense. But that's not what the deal is! Werth in his age 36-39 seasons at $18 million per? Come on now! To talk about the immediate value of this deal as the only thing that matters is to, well, abstract it completely out of context. Actually, I think it is even arguable that Dunn--"old ball" skills and all--is more likely to play to live up to the next four year than is Werth.

I suppose you can argue (as I believe you have, in fairness) that teams like DC have to throw down the gauntlet in order to land players of this caliber. But did they have to shell out this much money in order to get a decent-to-above-average corner OF who is already past his peak years? Apparently Boras made that argument--and Rizzo et al. were puddy in his hands.

Ron Madden
12-06-2010, 12:13 AM
I wasn't offended, and I had no problem with you stating you believed it was a bad deal. I just didn't get your rationale and was seeking an explanation. That's really all there was to it.

Something to keep in mind though, it's likely that since Dunn signed for $14 million, they would have had to given him more than $14 million or a longer deal than 4 years to get him signed. So if it had taken a deal similar to Werth, does that also become a bad deal?It has been reported since mid season that Dunn was asking Washington for a 4 year deal. I've read they agreed on money but the Nat's only offered a 2 or 3 year deal. Can't remember if it was 2 years or 3 years.

TRF
12-06-2010, 12:19 AM
here is why it is a bad deal. 2010 was Werth's best year. He played in a park that is homer friendly. He saw a ridiculous spike in his doubles, while his HR's dropped by nearly 10. Now he moves to the WAS which isn't HR friendly. But instead of 16 or so games there, now it's 81. I think his power suffers. I think he'll be pitched around more, and I think he'll try to adjust by expanding his strikezone. I think he's more 2008-09 than he is 2010, And I think his 3 year splits show he will be closer to an .820 OPS player overall next year.

Bad move. They didn't get better. The did however make a minisplash. Value wise they'd be better off if they had paid Dunn 60M over 4 years.

westofyou
12-06-2010, 12:32 AM
Holy Wayne Garland, that's a Mark Davis payoff if there ever was one.

Brutus
12-06-2010, 12:49 AM
Wait a minute--now who is looking at the deal in a vacuum? Sure, if you are considering the deal just for 2011, Werth at $18 million and Dunn at $14 million might make some kind of sense. But that's not what the deal is! Werth in his age 36-39 seasons at $18 million per? Come on now! To talk about the immediate value of this deal as the only thing that matters is to, well, abstract it completely out of context. Actually, I think it is even arguable that Dunn--"old ball" skills and all--is more likely to play to live up to the next four year than is Werth.

I suppose you can argue (as I believe you have, in fairness) that teams like DC have to throw down the gauntlet in order to land players of this caliber. But did they have to shell out this much money in order to get a decent-to-above-average corner OF who is already past his peak years? Apparently Boras made that argument--and Rizzo et al. were puddy in his hands.

But I already acknowledged that, to me, if a byproduct of getting him now and the next few years for fair market value is adding a few additional years to the end of the deal, it's worth it. If they will be able to make other moves in those years despite paying $18 million for what's assumed to be a crippled has-been, so be it.

I agree with you, the end of that deal is likely going to be brutal. But the first half of it is market value. And in order to sign him for market value now, they had to overpay later. In a vacuum, it's not a good deal. But what's the alternative? Perhaps it's Dunn, but we can't assume they could have had Dunn at 4 years, $56 million because that's what he actually went for. Perhaps they would have had to overpay him as well.

BuckeyeRedleg
12-06-2010, 01:27 AM
Just another example of why the Exponationals are the worst baseball organization of all time.

Seriously, they are.

Now, back to hibernation mode. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

redsfandan
12-06-2010, 05:30 AM
Why? Like I said, isn't the goal to win? If this deal helps them do that, why is it a bad move? You need to clarify your rationale, because I don't see how not making this signing, no matter how ridiculous the length is, is better than making it. Not spending the money won't help them a bit. If there are specific things that were on the table they could have done with the money to better themselves, by all means, it's a bad deal. But everyone seems to be looking at the length of this deal in a vacuum and saying "it's a bad deal." But no one is explaining why that is. Why they are better off without Werth.
Why it's a bad deal:

Jayson Stark -

The #Nationals offer on Werth was so far above everyone else that Boras didn't even ask other interested teams if they wanted to match it.
That wasn't so hard Brutus now was it? ;)

Overpaying to get the guy you want is one thing. Overpaying to the point that Boras knows that there's no chance that any other team will come anywhere close? Well, that's something different altogether. Heck, he was probably afraid that other teams would find out about the deal and talk the Nats out of it. You can believe that they had to give him that many years if you want. I doubt that you'll find many people that will believe you.

flyer85
12-06-2010, 09:21 AM
it seems to me that one thing that often isn't taken into account is park effects. He is leaving a hitters park for a pitchers park. Over his 27 HRs last year 15 were either lucky or just enough according to HitTracker. 7 years is ridiculous.

One other thing, IMO they need a lot more than Jason Werth to become a winner. It seems to me that in losing Dunn and adding Werth they are out a lot more money and a pretty much the same place they ended last year. I guess if they can go find 3-4 decent starters they could be a contender.

Sea Ray
12-06-2010, 09:54 AM
7 year / 126 million

Obviously the Nationals valued him much more than Adam Dunn. Strike up the Jason Werth for Hall of Fame talk!

Mario-Rijo
12-06-2010, 09:57 AM
The whispers are the Nats aren't necessarily done yet. Carlos Pena.

redsmetz
12-06-2010, 11:51 AM
Here's a blogpost from the Washington Post with links to a number of different opinions on the deal. The Crasnick piece is of particular interest. I'm in the camp that I'm not betting against Rizzo - he's going to move that club forward. Boswell has repeatedly said the ownership group has the money and they have to start some place. The closing days of this contract may be a problem, but I think they'll get their money out of this deal, particularly if they sign another player like Pena.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/12/rounding_up_jayson_werth_react.html

westofyou
12-06-2010, 12:50 PM
4 days ago....



As recession panic recedes, the baseball market is abandoning the bargain prices of the last two winters; and the Nats, apparently still hoping for wholesale, are being left behind.

Since the end of the season, $30 million in old contracts have dropped off the Nats' bottom-tier payroll. They could afford to add $40 million a year in free agents if they chose to do it. Shouldn't they follow the advice of former team president Stan Kasten, who said, "Now, it's time to add key pieces."

The Nats' best hope for a reasonably constructive winter is Rizzo's history of thinking outside the box and running silent until he's ready to act. Will the Nats ownership let Rizzo make a blow-away offer to a blue-chip free agent like Crawford or even the older Jayson Werth? Will they see the necessity of adding a pitcher, an outfielder and first baseman so they can lay the groundwork for '12 and beyond?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106224.html

Brutus
12-06-2010, 03:24 PM
Why it's a bad deal:

That wasn't so hard Brutus now was it? ;)

Overpaying to get the guy you want is one thing. Overpaying to the point that Boras knows that there's no chance that any other team will come anywhere close? Well, that's something different altogether. Heck, he was probably afraid that other teams would find out about the deal and talk the Nats out of it. You can believe that they had to give him that many years if you want. I doubt that you'll find many people that will believe you.

No club knows exactly what other teams are offering. They only have speculative media reports and the words of a less than truthful agent to go off of. But as I said, I am not denying they overpaid. They're not denying they overpaid. The issue is that they had to overpay to get Boras and Werth to agree to the deal. They are Washington, not the Yankees or Red Sox, after all.

Overpaying was a necessary evil. And as long as they will have the money to keep other positions competitive, then the extra years won't be a big deal.

REDREAD
12-06-2010, 04:02 PM
D.C. isn't exactly Cincinnati, Kansas City or Milwaukee. The Nationals have more wiggle room to take this kind of risk. Their revenue is better than a lot of clubs because of their stake in a sports network along with the Orioles. If a team that can only budget $60-70 million errs on a player making $18 million, that's a problem because they'd be hamstrung. But the Nationals can probably afford to take that chance a little more.

They're not the Yankees or Red Sox, and for that reason, they do have to be more careful and make sure they commit to developing players. But I don't think they'll be poverty-stricken if this Werth deal is a bust.

IMO, Washington is potentially a sleeping giant, not unlike the Phillies were, 10 years or so. They've got potential to sell a lot of expensive tickets there, they just need to give people a reason to come.

The Werth deal is risky for sure. Not sure that I'd do it. They've been trying to get a marquee player for years. They tried to get Texeria, but had to settle for Dunn. Dunn has left now, so they are hoping Werth can fill the void and be an upgrade. It's a risky move, for sure, but comparable to us overpaying for Cordero in hopes of jump starting a winning season and becoming relevant again. I can see why they'd do it. It's a calculated risk. It would've been better if they only had to commit for 3-4 years, but that wasn't going to get the job done.

redsmetz
12-07-2010, 08:14 AM
Tom Boswell puts in his two cents worth and lays out a good argument for this move, albeit one that will require further moves, namely Pena or LaRoche.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120606606.html

Mario-Rijo
12-07-2010, 10:16 AM
Werth = injury prone for a good portion of his career. Once he hits 34, 35 that body will likely fall apart on him, horrible deal.