Nationals Sign Jayson Werth

[RedLegSuperStar]

A Gonzalez is a member of the Boston Red Sox

[Ghosts of 1990]

another shining example of why the Nationals will just never 'get it'.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by RedLegSuperStar

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]

This smacks of desperation by the Nats front office to become relevant in the DC sports news cycle.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Ghosts of 1990

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]

Here's a link to a blog posting about the Werth signing:

http://www.masnsports.com/the_goessl...n-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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BearcatShane

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]

Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT

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]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

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.