Mark, bit of a fun oddball question, but you’ve been quite particular in your preference for spelling players name right (i.e. ensuring it’s spelled James Wood and not James Woods). Is this in part because you’ve been often confused for the founder of Facebook? No matter what, as someone who’s name is often misspelled, I back you fully in your endeavor for the correct spelling of names
I don't know that I consciously think about the Zuckerman/Zuckerberg issue, but maybe it's somewhere in the back of my mind. I just think it's not too much to ask fans of the Washington Nationals to correctly know the name of the team's best player! If you couldn't remember how to spell Mark Rzepczyinski back in the day, I get it. But James Wood? Come on!
Are the Nationals committed to improving the culture of defense being a priority by continuing to play Nunez at short? Yesterday's error notwithstanding. I would like to see best defenders around the field and then find a way to have CJ and Wood still get their at bats.
I don't see them playing Nuñez at shortstop as long as Abrams is on the roster and healthy, aside from the occasional day off for CJ like yesterday. Deep down, I'm sure they recognize Nuñez is a better shortstop than Abrams. But they're trying to keep Abrams' value as high as possible heading into trade deadline season, and a change of positions wouldn't help them in that regard. So for now, just enjoy having one of the best second basemen in the league!
Who would they be fooling? Doesn't the rest of the league also realize he is the worst SS in baseball? How does this keep his trade value elevated? I suspect there are other motives.
Everyone knows Abrams has defensive issues at SS. But if the Nationals move him to 2nd base now, they’re basically telling the league they don’t believe he can play SS. And asking him to learn a new position in the middle of the season could make things worse — he might not look good at second either.
For now, he’s a SS until he isn’t.
Honestly, I’m not even sure he’d be a good 2nd baseman. He might eventually end up in the outfield, kind of like Alfonso Soriano did. Other teams know about the defensive problems, but they may still believe they can fix him. Baseball people always think they can fix players kind of like women thinking they can fix their boyfriend or husband.
Does his defense hurt his trade value? Yes. But I think moving him off SS in the middle of the season would hurt it even more.
So what you're saying is "everyone knows this is stupid, but it's just one of the stupid things you do." If you want to build a team that's better than the competition by challenging old habits, this is a place to start.
Besides, CJ is determined not to get better at shortstop. It's counterproductive and stubborn to keep up the charade.
If you've seen improvement, I'm happy for you. I haven't watched more than a few highlight reels. It looks to me, and sounds from other people, that he's back to his usual slack attitude. He pimps fly balls that don't go out, he casually throws the ball 10 feet wide of the bag, and wonders why the team loses again. But he can get away with anything because there's no need to bust your ass when you're losing 100 games a year.
My larger point, however, is that everyone knows he is a bad shortstop. But I guess we're hoping one of the 29 other GMs who was smart enough to not draft Elijah Green will be stupid enough to look at this and go "oh yes, that'll solve our shortstop problem -- what we need is a good hitter who doesn't practice and stays out all night at the casino." All the while, you're teaching Nasim Nunez (and everyone else in the system) that giving a damn about fielding doesn't matter if you hit homers.
ALL OF THIS, then "oh jeez, we can't sell tickets -- woe is us well I guess we won't sign any free agents because attendance is low" when it's clear nobody in the organization thinks attention to detail matters.
You mention the improvement in pitching but we haven’t heard anything from Simon Matthews, Sean Doolittle, or Bobby Watson that I am aware. Can you provide insight to what it is they are doing to help improve pitching performance and how does that differ from the previous coaching staff?
I would say the improvements we see are the result of them better identifying a pitcher's strengths and weaknesses and prioritizing those strengths. If somebody's best pitch is a slider, they want him throwing that slider more than any other pitch. Beyond that, they are probably better equipped to use some of the new technology they have to make quicker changes than in the past. Like, being able to adjust a guy's arm angle or release point immediately during a bullpen throwing session, based on the instant data they get and interpret from each pitch thrown.
I know it's still early, but are you worried at all about the Jorbit Vivas trade being a mistake? Sean Paul-Linan has put up pretty good stats so far with the Yankees including a 12.3 K/9 and it seems like Vivas is a bit repetitive with Tena out preforming him so far
That trade confused me at the time, because why were they willing to give up a young pitching prospect for a backup infielder who was out of options, especially when they already had a carbon copy of him on the roster in Tena. Vivas did come here with a better reputation than Tena as a more patient hitter and better defender. (The latter certainly is true, and we've seen they barely let Tena play the field at all now.) But for an organization prioritizing long-term over short-term, it seemed a little off. The sense I got is that they weren't as high on Linan as the DeBartolo front office that acquired him was. His best pitch is his changeup, but perhaps his fastball wasn't good enough? He's still very young and still at Single-A, so it'll be years before we know how this works out. But in a broader sense, it was certainly worth questioning the value in trading a pitching prospect for a major-league backup infielder at this stage of their rebuild.
I agree. But also, if you’re Griffin, can you say no to that? Your career hasn’t gone how you planned and you’re probably one serious arm injury away from being done.
Most players like to bet on themselves. Sometimes you have a guy like Ronald Acuna or Keibert Ruiz, who come from nothing and are thrilled to grab the first opportunity to secure their family's future. But guys who were top draft picks, who didn't come from poverty and who have already made a few million, tend to bet on themselves when they are playing well and just months from free agency. At 30, Griffin won't have many more chances. Also there will be a new CBA next season and despite all the noise about lockouts and salary caps, the most likely scenario is that there will be a full season next year and salaries will go up -- again. Just like they always do.
I don't disagree with you there. It's interesting, to say the least. There's a world of difference between making $7M in your career and making $50M+, though. Would be interesting to see what he fetches on the open market if he pitches well all year. Could he get 5 years at over $100M+? Maybe!
I was trying to think of comparables but they are all older guys like Sonny Gray, Jordan Montgomery, and Chris Bassitt. Maybe Lugo, too. Griffin falls into their "crafty but effective" more-mix-than-stuff profile. Their contracts would suggest $25 million/year or maybe less if it's more guaranteed years (assuming Griffin keeps it up through September). No way to know for sure, but if I'm Griffin, I want to find out!
I am fascinated by this subject, because I really don't know what the open market would offer Griffin right now. It's easy for us to look at what he's done through eight MLB starts and see a stalwart for years to come. But does the rest of the sport look at him that way, or do they need to see a lot more of him before anyone's ready to make a long-term commitment?
If I'm the Nats, I wait another month or so, just to make sure he keeps this up. And if he does, I would aggressively attempt to sign him to an extension. At least two years plus an option. Maybe three guaranteed years if you think that's necessary to make it happen. You can't expect to build an eventual rotation entirely out of homegrown prospects. And if you delve into free agency later on, it's going to cost a lot more to sign a proven starter. So I think it would be worth the gamble to retain a guy you identified all along, and one who perhaps would be appreciative of the organization that gave him this opportunity in the first place.
Two quick questions. One, how much time does Joey Wiemer have on the major league roster? He’s barely in the lineup and his pinch running gaffe on Saturday didn’t help his case.
Two, what’s your sense on when/if Dylan Crews could be back?
I would think the two are somewhat tied together. Wiemer's struggles certainly play a role in it. After slashing a ridiculous .588/.682/1.059 during the opening road trip, he has produced a paltry .182/.250/.318 line since. But they're not going to drop him until another right-handed outfielder is ready to take over. And the obvious option there is Crews, who has been a bit better at Triple-A (.278/.316/.472 so far this month) but still needs to show it over a longer stretch.
I say give it at least another couple weeks. If Crews is able to sustain some success and Wiemer continues not to produce, I could see the team making the move at last.
The two biggest questions will be CJ Abrams and Foster Griffin. How motivated is the front office to trade either or both guys, and how high will the bar be to move them? Because Griffin is a free agent after the season, they have less room to demand a lot in a trade, which is why I wonder if they'd be open to signing him to an extension. With Abrams, they're under no obligation to trade him now because he still has two more years of control after this season. That's really more about what kind of offers they get.
Beyond actual trade candidates, though, I think you will see some significant roster changes between now and the end of July. I would be surprised to see both Zack Littell and Miles Mikolas on the roster at that point, whether either can pitch well enough to draw trade interest or just get released. You would certainly hope that Dylan Crews and Harry Ford are in the big leagues by then, as well as some others currently at Triple-A (Luis Perales? Riley Cornelio?).
Thank you for the response. It is very much appreciated as is your reporting always. After the last big trade away of players , I'm a little cautious and it's good to know what to expect. I don't like the surprise. Go Nats!
It would be pretty remarkable if they can sustain a pace near the the .500 mark all season long. Not saying it's impossible, but that would be far better than just about anyone (including the front office itself) expected coming into the season. That said, I don't think it necessarily changes the outlook that much if they wind up with 78 wins vs. 70 wins. It's more about who is producing or not producing, and whether they're part of the long-term plan, than the actual win total, in my mind.
I mentioned above Abrams and Griffin will be the two biggest names to watch. If Littell and/or Mikolas can someone get it together enough to draw interest, that would be helpful. Beyond that, I'll be curious if there are any takers on Garcia or Young.
2 questions: With Foster Griffin turning out so well, do you think Nats fans can expect more acquisitions from the Japanese league (or other international leagues) in the future? Or is this seen as a special case?
And what are the rumblings about CJ Abrams? He's getting a lot of attention outside DC, but his errors are starting to stick out like a sore thumb. Do you think they'll trade him this year?
I'm not sure you can count on them (or any team) being able to sign an American-born player who has gone to play in Japan and turning them into a quality big-leaguer every year. There just aren't that many good players who find themselves in that situation. But whatever process the Nats used to identify and then sign Griffin should be something they seek to do across the board. It doesn't have to be a 30-year-old pitching in Japan. It could work in Latin America, the MLB Draft or even just identifying a promising player stuck in the minors somewhere.
I like the roster churn and the idea of moving relievers around all the time to constantly have fresh arms. The lineup juggling/creativity is a much fresher approach than in previous years.
But at what point are the players going to be out of options such that they cannot be sent down again? (Should there be an "options count" on your roster page here?)
And similar to this: is this type of roster management sustainable for multiple years? If these pitchers last to the end of the season with one or zero options left, and we want to keep those guys for next year, that means the 2027 season starts with guys who cannot be moved so easily.
I might be saying something that you already know, but players only use up one option per year. They don't use an option every time they are called up and then sent down. A pitcher who is up and down five times in a year uses only a single option year. There is a cap at five, so before a player can be sent down a sixth time he would have to pass through waivers.
The thing to keep in mind when it comes to options -- and this is admittedly confusing to anyone who doesn't pay close attention to these things -- is that when you say a player has "X number of options" left, that refers to the number of years remaining in which that player can be sent up and down to the minors without having to be placed on waivers. Now, it used to be that a player with options could be shuttled back and forth to Triple-A as many times as a team wanted, but MLB has since limited it to five moves per season. So for a reliever who has two options remaining like, say, Orlando Ribalta, the Nats are free to demote him to Rochester five times this year. Then he'll be eligible for the same thing next year, when he has one option remaining. After the 2027 season, he'd be out of options, which means they couldn't demote him to the minors without first passing him through waivers (which is typically done after he's designated for assignment).
Two part question (maybe really 4 part) that revolves around catching: (1) what do you make of the bad ABS challenges by both Kiebert and especially Millas/do you think Blake will rein them in some way? (2) who do you think will be the long term “solution” there, and when?
For those wondering the official stats, Nationals catchers are 18-for-38 on ABS challenges, a 47 percent success rate that ranks 29th out of 30 clubs (only the White Sox are worse). Also interesting: Only seven teams have challenged fewer calls from the catching/pitching position this season. I suppose Butera can rein them in more, but it's not like they're challenging that many calls to begin with. They just need to be better at it.
Long term, the club hopes Harry Ford becomes the No. 1 catcher. But for those who aren't aware, he's batting .192/.319/.253 at Rochester. So he's not exactly banging down the door to be promoted.
Thank you! Do you happen to know what Ford’s stats are for ABS challenges in Rochester? Saw him a lot in the WBC, and at the plate at least (there was no ABS as you know) he seemed to have a really keen eye re: the strike zone…
How are the Nationals faring in comparison to other teams when it comes to challenges to ball/strike calls? My sense is that the Nats' catchers win the majority of their challenges while the batters do less well.
Just by the eye test, and from talking to fans of other teams, I think we have to be - if not last - in the bottom 3 or 4 in challenges as a team. Last I heard we had around a 33% success rate. The hard thing to understand is catchers being wrong both behind the plate and when batting.
Just posted their catching ABS numbers in the previous answer. They're at 47 percent, which is better than only the White Sox. Nationals hitters, meanwhile, are 11-for-33 at challenges, a 33 percent success rate that is last in the majors. So, they're not doing this well from either side of the equation.
Do you sense some movement into the bullpen of Littell and Mikolas any time before the All-Star break? They’re really hard to watch as starters. Minor league starters aren’t pressing the issue, but I do wonder if you don’t just give one of them a chance.
I'm not sure the Nats would move either of those guys to the bullpen full-time. If they're here, they're probably starters (or bulk relievers, with somebody opening for them). I suppose Littell has been a reliever before, but Mikolas hasn't. And I'm not sure either provides much value in that role.
Good morning, Mark. I know most of them are years away but do you think the Nats’ plethora of promising infield prospects - Willits, Cruz, King, Fitz-Gerald, Fien, Dickerson - will make Toboni more inclined to listen on Abrams?
Does the calculus change at the deadline if the Nats are, say, four games out of a wild card spot?
Any consideration to trading Abrams now is based on this simple equation: Do they believe they'll be a serious contender before he becomes a free agent after the 2028 season? If the answer is no, they'll look to move him. But yes, you do have to factor in what they have coming up behind him for the long term, and there do appear to be a number of promising young shortstops who could be ready to take over by 2028.
As far as any wild-card run goes, I wouldn't get my hopes up. The organization never intended to contend this season. And even if they somehow get to late July right around the .500 mark, I think there are too many other good teams in the NL to think there's a real shot at making it to October. I don't see them letting this season's record get in the way of their long-term vision.
If you were offering interim grades, how would Butera and Toboni fare? I've been impressed with Butera's in-game moves, but I'm less clear on Toboni. Semi-related, any chance the Nats try to extend CJ? For all the talk about his defensive lapses, shortstops who hit like he does are pretty tough to find. Thanks for the Q&A.
It's so hard to evaluate managers and GMs, especially after only 41 games. I would say the early returns are certainly positive, but that doesn't guarantee it's going to stay that way over the entire season. This is really about long-term progress as opposed to short-term gain. Just because the Nats have been flirting with .500 doesn't necessarily mean Butera and Toboni are doing a better job than they would be if the team was 10 games under. It's about changing the entire culture of the organization and setting themselves up for future success. And it's just too soon to really know if they've done a good job of that.
Regarding an Abrams extension ... it of course takes two to tango. And if you're the Nats, knowing what you expect to be coming in a few years at the shortstop position, I'm not sure you invest a nine-figure deal in Abrams right now. James Wood? Different story.
Mark, bit of a fun oddball question, but you’ve been quite particular in your preference for spelling players name right (i.e. ensuring it’s spelled James Wood and not James Woods). Is this in part because you’ve been often confused for the founder of Facebook? No matter what, as someone who’s name is often misspelled, I back you fully in your endeavor for the correct spelling of names
I don't know that I consciously think about the Zuckerman/Zuckerberg issue, but maybe it's somewhere in the back of my mind. I just think it's not too much to ask fans of the Washington Nationals to correctly know the name of the team's best player! If you couldn't remember how to spell Mark Rzepczyinski back in the day, I get it. But James Wood? Come on!
Mark, your rep as my favorite beat reporter across any sport grows with every column and comment I read. Keep fighting the good fight!
Are the Nationals committed to improving the culture of defense being a priority by continuing to play Nunez at short? Yesterday's error notwithstanding. I would like to see best defenders around the field and then find a way to have CJ and Wood still get their at bats.
I don't see them playing Nuñez at shortstop as long as Abrams is on the roster and healthy, aside from the occasional day off for CJ like yesterday. Deep down, I'm sure they recognize Nuñez is a better shortstop than Abrams. But they're trying to keep Abrams' value as high as possible heading into trade deadline season, and a change of positions wouldn't help them in that regard. So for now, just enjoy having one of the best second basemen in the league!
Who would they be fooling? Doesn't the rest of the league also realize he is the worst SS in baseball? How does this keep his trade value elevated? I suspect there are other motives.
Yup, exactly right!
Everyone knows Abrams has defensive issues at SS. But if the Nationals move him to 2nd base now, they’re basically telling the league they don’t believe he can play SS. And asking him to learn a new position in the middle of the season could make things worse — he might not look good at second either.
For now, he’s a SS until he isn’t.
Honestly, I’m not even sure he’d be a good 2nd baseman. He might eventually end up in the outfield, kind of like Alfonso Soriano did. Other teams know about the defensive problems, but they may still believe they can fix him. Baseball people always think they can fix players kind of like women thinking they can fix their boyfriend or husband.
Does his defense hurt his trade value? Yes. But I think moving him off SS in the middle of the season would hurt it even more.
So what you're saying is "everyone knows this is stupid, but it's just one of the stupid things you do." If you want to build a team that's better than the competition by challenging old habits, this is a place to start.
Besides, CJ is determined not to get better at shortstop. It's counterproductive and stubborn to keep up the charade.
Is your last statement a known thing? Is CJ resistant to improvement? It isn't saying much, but I think he has improved this season from last, even.
I agree with your overall premise, but not sure about the end.
If you've seen improvement, I'm happy for you. I haven't watched more than a few highlight reels. It looks to me, and sounds from other people, that he's back to his usual slack attitude. He pimps fly balls that don't go out, he casually throws the ball 10 feet wide of the bag, and wonders why the team loses again. But he can get away with anything because there's no need to bust your ass when you're losing 100 games a year.
My larger point, however, is that everyone knows he is a bad shortstop. But I guess we're hoping one of the 29 other GMs who was smart enough to not draft Elijah Green will be stupid enough to look at this and go "oh yes, that'll solve our shortstop problem -- what we need is a good hitter who doesn't practice and stays out all night at the casino." All the while, you're teaching Nasim Nunez (and everyone else in the system) that giving a damn about fielding doesn't matter if you hit homers.
ALL OF THIS, then "oh jeez, we can't sell tickets -- woe is us well I guess we won't sign any free agents because attendance is low" when it's clear nobody in the organization thinks attention to detail matters.
You mention the improvement in pitching but we haven’t heard anything from Simon Matthews, Sean Doolittle, or Bobby Watson that I am aware. Can you provide insight to what it is they are doing to help improve pitching performance and how does that differ from the previous coaching staff?
I would say the improvements we see are the result of them better identifying a pitcher's strengths and weaknesses and prioritizing those strengths. If somebody's best pitch is a slider, they want him throwing that slider more than any other pitch. Beyond that, they are probably better equipped to use some of the new technology they have to make quicker changes than in the past. Like, being able to adjust a guy's arm angle or release point immediately during a bullpen throwing session, based on the instant data they get and interpret from each pitch thrown.
I know it's still early, but are you worried at all about the Jorbit Vivas trade being a mistake? Sean Paul-Linan has put up pretty good stats so far with the Yankees including a 12.3 K/9 and it seems like Vivas is a bit repetitive with Tena out preforming him so far
Agree that they should not have dealt a pitching prospect.
That trade confused me at the time, because why were they willing to give up a young pitching prospect for a backup infielder who was out of options, especially when they already had a carbon copy of him on the roster in Tena. Vivas did come here with a better reputation than Tena as a more patient hitter and better defender. (The latter certainly is true, and we've seen they barely let Tena play the field at all now.) But for an organization prioritizing long-term over short-term, it seemed a little off. The sense I got is that they weren't as high on Linan as the DeBartolo front office that acquired him was. His best pitch is his changeup, but perhaps his fastball wasn't good enough? He's still very young and still at Single-A, so it'll be years before we know how this works out. But in a broader sense, it was certainly worth questioning the value in trading a pitching prospect for a major-league backup infielder at this stage of their rebuild.
3 years, $45M extension - who says no, the Nats or Foster Griffin?
just me personally? the number would have to be a fair bit higher for me to not be excited about keeping Griffin from rocking the curly W
I agree. But also, if you’re Griffin, can you say no to that? Your career hasn’t gone how you planned and you’re probably one serious arm injury away from being done.
Most players like to bet on themselves. Sometimes you have a guy like Ronald Acuna or Keibert Ruiz, who come from nothing and are thrilled to grab the first opportunity to secure their family's future. But guys who were top draft picks, who didn't come from poverty and who have already made a few million, tend to bet on themselves when they are playing well and just months from free agency. At 30, Griffin won't have many more chances. Also there will be a new CBA next season and despite all the noise about lockouts and salary caps, the most likely scenario is that there will be a full season next year and salaries will go up -- again. Just like they always do.
I don't disagree with you there. It's interesting, to say the least. There's a world of difference between making $7M in your career and making $50M+, though. Would be interesting to see what he fetches on the open market if he pitches well all year. Could he get 5 years at over $100M+? Maybe!
I was trying to think of comparables but they are all older guys like Sonny Gray, Jordan Montgomery, and Chris Bassitt. Maybe Lugo, too. Griffin falls into their "crafty but effective" more-mix-than-stuff profile. Their contracts would suggest $25 million/year or maybe less if it's more guaranteed years (assuming Griffin keeps it up through September). No way to know for sure, but if I'm Griffin, I want to find out!
I am fascinated by this subject, because I really don't know what the open market would offer Griffin right now. It's easy for us to look at what he's done through eight MLB starts and see a stalwart for years to come. But does the rest of the sport look at him that way, or do they need to see a lot more of him before anyone's ready to make a long-term commitment?
If I'm the Nats, I wait another month or so, just to make sure he keeps this up. And if he does, I would aggressively attempt to sign him to an extension. At least two years plus an option. Maybe three guaranteed years if you think that's necessary to make it happen. You can't expect to build an eventual rotation entirely out of homegrown prospects. And if you delve into free agency later on, it's going to cost a lot more to sign a proven starter. So I think it would be worth the gamble to retain a guy you identified all along, and one who perhaps would be appreciative of the organization that gave him this opportunity in the first place.
Hi Mark!
Two quick questions. One, how much time does Joey Wiemer have on the major league roster? He’s barely in the lineup and his pinch running gaffe on Saturday didn’t help his case.
Two, what’s your sense on when/if Dylan Crews could be back?
Thanks!
I would think the two are somewhat tied together. Wiemer's struggles certainly play a role in it. After slashing a ridiculous .588/.682/1.059 during the opening road trip, he has produced a paltry .182/.250/.318 line since. But they're not going to drop him until another right-handed outfielder is ready to take over. And the obvious option there is Crews, who has been a bit better at Triple-A (.278/.316/.472 so far this month) but still needs to show it over a longer stretch.
I say give it at least another couple weeks. If Crews is able to sustain some success and Wiemer continues not to produce, I could see the team making the move at last.
Who can we expect to still see or not see on the field following the July trade deadline?
The two biggest questions will be CJ Abrams and Foster Griffin. How motivated is the front office to trade either or both guys, and how high will the bar be to move them? Because Griffin is a free agent after the season, they have less room to demand a lot in a trade, which is why I wonder if they'd be open to signing him to an extension. With Abrams, they're under no obligation to trade him now because he still has two more years of control after this season. That's really more about what kind of offers they get.
Beyond actual trade candidates, though, I think you will see some significant roster changes between now and the end of July. I would be surprised to see both Zack Littell and Miles Mikolas on the roster at that point, whether either can pitch well enough to draw trade interest or just get released. You would certainly hope that Dylan Crews and Harry Ford are in the big leagues by then, as well as some others currently at Triple-A (Luis Perales? Riley Cornelio?).
Thank you for the response. It is very much appreciated as is your reporting always. After the last big trade away of players , I'm a little cautious and it's good to know what to expect. I don't like the surprise. Go Nats!
Should the fanbase expect a team to be around just under 500 for the rest of the season or is a drastic decline coming?
It would be pretty remarkable if they can sustain a pace near the the .500 mark all season long. Not saying it's impossible, but that would be far better than just about anyone (including the front office itself) expected coming into the season. That said, I don't think it necessarily changes the outlook that much if they wind up with 78 wins vs. 70 wins. It's more about who is producing or not producing, and whether they're part of the long-term plan, than the actual win total, in my mind.
Who gets peddled at the trade deadline? CJ Abrams? Foster Griffin?
I mentioned above Abrams and Griffin will be the two biggest names to watch. If Littell and/or Mikolas can someone get it together enough to draw interest, that would be helpful. Beyond that, I'll be curious if there are any takers on Garcia or Young.
2 questions: With Foster Griffin turning out so well, do you think Nats fans can expect more acquisitions from the Japanese league (or other international leagues) in the future? Or is this seen as a special case?
And what are the rumblings about CJ Abrams? He's getting a lot of attention outside DC, but his errors are starting to stick out like a sore thumb. Do you think they'll trade him this year?
I'm not sure you can count on them (or any team) being able to sign an American-born player who has gone to play in Japan and turning them into a quality big-leaguer every year. There just aren't that many good players who find themselves in that situation. But whatever process the Nats used to identify and then sign Griffin should be something they seek to do across the board. It doesn't have to be a 30-year-old pitching in Japan. It could work in Latin America, the MLB Draft or even just identifying a promising player stuck in the minors somewhere.
I like the roster churn and the idea of moving relievers around all the time to constantly have fresh arms. The lineup juggling/creativity is a much fresher approach than in previous years.
But at what point are the players going to be out of options such that they cannot be sent down again? (Should there be an "options count" on your roster page here?)
And similar to this: is this type of roster management sustainable for multiple years? If these pitchers last to the end of the season with one or zero options left, and we want to keep those guys for next year, that means the 2027 season starts with guys who cannot be moved so easily.
The podcast and substance are excellent as usual!
I might be saying something that you already know, but players only use up one option per year. They don't use an option every time they are called up and then sent down. A pitcher who is up and down five times in a year uses only a single option year. There is a cap at five, so before a player can be sent down a sixth time he would have to pass through waivers.
The thing to keep in mind when it comes to options -- and this is admittedly confusing to anyone who doesn't pay close attention to these things -- is that when you say a player has "X number of options" left, that refers to the number of years remaining in which that player can be sent up and down to the minors without having to be placed on waivers. Now, it used to be that a player with options could be shuttled back and forth to Triple-A as many times as a team wanted, but MLB has since limited it to five moves per season. So for a reliever who has two options remaining like, say, Orlando Ribalta, the Nats are free to demote him to Rochester five times this year. Then he'll be eligible for the same thing next year, when he has one option remaining. After the 2027 season, he'd be out of options, which means they couldn't demote him to the minors without first passing him through waivers (which is typically done after he's designated for assignment).
It's confusing, I know!
Ah, it's "option years" remaining with a limit of five per year. Yeah, I didn't know how that worked.
Thank you for the explanation. I didn’t know
Thanks for the explanation.
Two part question (maybe really 4 part) that revolves around catching: (1) what do you make of the bad ABS challenges by both Kiebert and especially Millas/do you think Blake will rein them in some way? (2) who do you think will be the long term “solution” there, and when?
For those wondering the official stats, Nationals catchers are 18-for-38 on ABS challenges, a 47 percent success rate that ranks 29th out of 30 clubs (only the White Sox are worse). Also interesting: Only seven teams have challenged fewer calls from the catching/pitching position this season. I suppose Butera can rein them in more, but it's not like they're challenging that many calls to begin with. They just need to be better at it.
Long term, the club hopes Harry Ford becomes the No. 1 catcher. But for those who aren't aware, he's batting .192/.319/.253 at Rochester. So he's not exactly banging down the door to be promoted.
Thank you! Do you happen to know what Ford’s stats are for ABS challenges in Rochester? Saw him a lot in the WBC, and at the plate at least (there was no ABS as you know) he seemed to have a really keen eye re: the strike zone…
Harry Ford has a 45% success rate. He’s ranked 88th in ABS Challenges among AAA catchers.
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/leaderboard/abs-challenges?gameType=regular&year=2026&challengeType=catcher&level=aaa&minChal=1&minOppChal=0&sort=net_net_chal&sortDir=desc&page=1&pageSize=50
Thank you! Guess he is underperforming in this these days as well....
How are the Nationals faring in comparison to other teams when it comes to challenges to ball/strike calls? My sense is that the Nats' catchers win the majority of their challenges while the batters do less well.
Just by the eye test, and from talking to fans of other teams, I think we have to be - if not last - in the bottom 3 or 4 in challenges as a team. Last I heard we had around a 33% success rate. The hard thing to understand is catchers being wrong both behind the plate and when batting.
Just posted their catching ABS numbers in the previous answer. They're at 47 percent, which is better than only the White Sox. Nationals hitters, meanwhile, are 11-for-33 at challenges, a 33 percent success rate that is last in the majors. So, they're not doing this well from either side of the equation.
Do you sense some movement into the bullpen of Littell and Mikolas any time before the All-Star break? They’re really hard to watch as starters. Minor league starters aren’t pressing the issue, but I do wonder if you don’t just give one of them a chance.
I'm not sure the Nats would move either of those guys to the bullpen full-time. If they're here, they're probably starters (or bulk relievers, with somebody opening for them). I suppose Littell has been a reliever before, but Mikolas hasn't. And I'm not sure either provides much value in that role.
Good morning, Mark. I know most of them are years away but do you think the Nats’ plethora of promising infield prospects - Willits, Cruz, King, Fitz-Gerald, Fien, Dickerson - will make Toboni more inclined to listen on Abrams?
Does the calculus change at the deadline if the Nats are, say, four games out of a wild card spot?
Any consideration to trading Abrams now is based on this simple equation: Do they believe they'll be a serious contender before he becomes a free agent after the 2028 season? If the answer is no, they'll look to move him. But yes, you do have to factor in what they have coming up behind him for the long term, and there do appear to be a number of promising young shortstops who could be ready to take over by 2028.
As far as any wild-card run goes, I wouldn't get my hopes up. The organization never intended to contend this season. And even if they somehow get to late July right around the .500 mark, I think there are too many other good teams in the NL to think there's a real shot at making it to October. I don't see them letting this season's record get in the way of their long-term vision.
If you were offering interim grades, how would Butera and Toboni fare? I've been impressed with Butera's in-game moves, but I'm less clear on Toboni. Semi-related, any chance the Nats try to extend CJ? For all the talk about his defensive lapses, shortstops who hit like he does are pretty tough to find. Thanks for the Q&A.
It's so hard to evaluate managers and GMs, especially after only 41 games. I would say the early returns are certainly positive, but that doesn't guarantee it's going to stay that way over the entire season. This is really about long-term progress as opposed to short-term gain. Just because the Nats have been flirting with .500 doesn't necessarily mean Butera and Toboni are doing a better job than they would be if the team was 10 games under. It's about changing the entire culture of the organization and setting themselves up for future success. And it's just too soon to really know if they've done a good job of that.
Regarding an Abrams extension ... it of course takes two to tango. And if you're the Nats, knowing what you expect to be coming in a few years at the shortstop position, I'm not sure you invest a nine-figure deal in Abrams right now. James Wood? Different story.