Finding a Home for Justin Verlander in Washington
What do you get the team that seemingly has everything? The Washington Nationals have the best pitcher in the National League with Clayton Kershaw on the disabled list. They have two of the best position players in the National League right now in Bryce Harper and Anthony Rendon. They have depth in the lineup with the fantastic Daniel Murphy and the rejuvenated Ryan Zimmerman. Their bullpen was terrible about a week ago, and that’s been seemingly solved with the addition of Ryan Madson and Sean Doolittle. They already have a playoff spot nearly locked down, with an 11.5 game lead on a division full of sellers. So what do you get the team that’s already set for the playoffs in July? How about Justin Verlander?
We probably wouldn’t be talking about the Nationals adding a pitcher if Stephen Strasburg hadn’t left his last start after two innings. With Max Scherzer followed by Strasburg, then Gio Gonzalez and Tanner Roark, the Nationals have one of the better top-fours in baseball. Take away fifth starters, and only the Boston Red Sox have a higher projected WAR the rest of the way than the Nationals. That’s a really formidable playoff rotation, and it doesn’t really matter that Joe Ross is out for the year or one of the best teams in baseball is using Edwin Jackson as a starter because they will make the playoffs and the fifth starter doesn’t matter. However, it does matter if Strasburg can’t be counted on, and depending on the potential acquisition, even if he is back, a great third starter could help a lot in the playoffs and next season.
There might be some temptation on Washington’s part to go for a rental. With the team already set for the regular season, a rental’s value is limited to the postseason. How much in prospects and money is a pitcher worth for one game? Assuming the Nationals don’t catch the Dodgers–who are way out in front right now–and the Cubs take control in the NL Central, the Nationals will play the Cubs in the Division Series. The team would certainly like its chances with Scherzer against Jon Lester and Strasburg against Jose Quintana, but Gio Gonzalez and Tanner Roark and Scherzer on three days rest against Quintana, Jake Arrieta, and Kyle Hendricks isn’t quite as appetizing.
Yu Darvish certainly fits the bill of what the Nationals are looking for, but he might not even be available. After that, Lance Lynn is solid, but not much — if any — upgrade over Gonzalez and Roark. It goes down from there, with Marco Estrada, Jeremy Hellickson and some of the other pitchers available. As for the non-rentals, Sonny Gray is the big name out there, and he would certainly slot in behind Scherzer and provide cost-control over the next two seasons. The same is true of Gerrit Cole, even though he hasn’t been as good this season. Of course, those players are going to be expensive, not in salaries, but in prospects. Assuming Victor Robles is untouchable, and he probably should be–or at least pretty close–the Nationals are going to have to do quite a bit of damage to their system to land a cheap cost-controlled starter. Verlander presents an alternative.
Verlander is owed is around $10 million for the rest of this season and $28 million for each of the two subsequent seasons. That price tag puts the Nationals in a unique position. For a team like the Yankees or the Dodgers to add Verlander, they are going to have pay the competitive balance tax on that salary. Verlander’s salary is already pretty steep, but it might actually be too rich for teams that are way into the tax, especially after this season. Other teams in small or middle-sized markets are unlikely to be willing to take on Verlander’s salary without tax considerations because they don’t want to tie up that much of the payroll for a pitcher’s age-35 and age-36 seasons. That’s where Washington can step in.
The Nationals are not yet in the tax this season, and while it’s possible Verlander’s $10 million will get them close or potentially over by a little bit, the tax burden on the team is not great. As for next season, the Nationals are about to see Jayson Werth’s contract expire and there might be a light at the end of the tunnel for the team’s dispute with the Orioles over television rights fees that could provide the team with a more certain revenue stream. The team could take on almost all of Verlander’s salary next year and still come in right around the competitive tax amount of $197 million to make one more run with the team’s current set of stars.
Washington is not a win-now in 2017 team, and the long-term future is still solid with players like Trea Turner, Rendon, Scherzer, and hopefully Adam Eaton as well as a potential star in Robles. But after 2018, Gonzalez, Harper and Murphy will all be free agents. The trio have put together 9.4 WAR this season, roughly one-third of the Nationals total, so the team’s definitive championship window is 2017-18. Verlander might not be great, but he’s a good pitcher right now, and he’ll still be one next year, even at a high cost. The loss of Ross might not affect the team’s outlook the rest of this year, but it certainly does for next season.
The Detroit Tigers appear to be moving into the future and would like a team to take on Verlander’s salary and provide prospects. There might not be any teams willing to do both, but if there is one, it’s the Nationals. Washington isn’t going to give up Victor Robles for Verlander, but they do have Erick Fedde and Juan Soto, either of whom would make a fine centerpiece in a deal for Verlander. Detroit might have to kick in some money, and a player like Alex Avila might interest the Nationals as well, but it’s hard to find a better fit for both the Nationals and the Tigers than seeing Justin Verlander rejoin Max Scherzer at the top of the rotation. This is a deal that might not happen until August given the salary involved and the questions surrounding Strasburg’s health, but it’s a deal Washington could make even if Strasburg is healthy. If it turns out Strasburg is fine, we could see the best top-of-the-rotation in baseball since the 2011 Phillies gave us Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Cole Hamels.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
I like your thinking, but it’s hard to envision the Lerners approving a trade that puts them over budget when, just this offseason, they vetoed acquisitions of David Robertson and Greg Holland. (We don’t truly know why but it’s safe to assume budget played a role.) I believe there’ve been other situations like that too.
Of course, the Lerners do like star power in deadline deals (see: Papelbon).
It is probably highly unlikely this happens anyways, but the Tigers have offered to pay the remainder of 2017’s salary for Verlander in any deal. So they could avoid that.
This is more of an observation than a reason to go after him, but Verlander’s roots are in Richmond and Norfolk, two areas that the Nats would surely like to break further into. I could see them chasing a Verlander-Wilson package as well.
I could see that too and it’s a good point. Verlander is from Goochland, just outside of Richmond and went to ODU in Hampton Roads, but the Nats already have Zimmerman who grew up in Virginia Beach and went to college outside of Richmond, not sure Verlander moves the needle a ton, but would move it some. However, taking on Verlander might mean that acquiring Wilson is much cheaper because Verlander is essentially a negative asset due to his contract. Any team can likely claim him on waivers in August and the Tigers would likely just let him go to save money.
But is Verlander a negative asset? His traditional stats don’t look so good right now but the stuff is still there and he’s healthy. Projecting him for 3.5 WAR in 2018 and 3 in 2019 doesn’t seem like a stretch and that’s pretty close to the free agent cost per WAR.
Right. He doesn’t really have any surplus value – Soto or Fedde is way, way too much. Something more like A.J. Cole – who they can dream on and at least can eat innings on a bad team – plus a lower-level lottery ticket is a more reasonable cost, unless the Tigers eat Verlander’s salary to the tune of $30-40MM.
everything is going right for them this year
easy life
Can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. But we’re now running our 5th/7th OF’ers every day in LF and CF, with the starting CF out for the year. Our SS will be out for a total of about 2 months, we’ve lost 2 good bullpen arms from last year to injury this year. Our 5th starter just had TJ, Strasburg has left early his last 2 starts, and our pre-season projected closer and only 1 of 2 effective relievers early in the year (glover) will most likely be missing the rest of the season. So while I’m certainly pleased regarding our lead and Harper/Scherzer/Rendon, it’s hardly been a rosy season
jr pls
“Scherzer against Jon Lester and Strasburg against Jose Quintana, but Gio Gonzalez and Tanner Roark and Scherzer on three days rest against Quintana, Jake Arrieta, and Kyle Hendricks isn’t quite as appetizing.”
I’m just curious why you have Lester seemingly going Game 1 vs. Scherzer, but then you have Quintana making 2 starts in the series and not lester. Or is that saying Scherzer on 3 days rest if Strasburg cant start game 2 and you need to bump everyone up?
This is insane. Verlander is basically about the same level as Roark and Gio Gonzalez.
They’d be better off trading for a rental now (like the Twins did with Garcia) and then overspending on a FA pitcher when they want to fill a spot next year if they’re worried about the back end of the rotation. Would be cheaper in dollars (and probably prospects) and would give them the same production.
And Fedde or Soto as the headliner for Verlander? And in that deal, the Tigers “might” have to kick in some money? What year is this again? This whole article doesn’t compute.
Yeah, the only way it makes sense is if:
1) Strasburg is hurt for real and they need a legit replacement, and
2) The prospect return to DET is minimal.
To a team like WAS, the attraction in Verlander is if he can be bought for straight cash simply by absorbing his contract. If they have to give up a top prospect going the other way, I think they’d look elsewhere.
I think you’re underselling Verlander. Remember, he almost (& really should have) won the AL CY last year. Granted, he’s been down this year, but, not due to his stuff, but, really control. & all of a sudden he’s reeled off 3 good starts in a row.
Now, maybe the 2016 (0r 2011-12) Verlander is gone forever, but, I can certainly see a scenario where that’s not the case. & if I’m Washington and you’re all in for 2017-18 & making the WS is all that matters, whom would you trust more to start a Game 3 in the NLDS or a key start in the NLCS? Tanner Roark or dream on Verlander turning back the clock & allowing 1 run in 7 innings? I’d take the latter all day long.
As long as we’re dreaming, wouldn’t Jordan Zimmermann be even better poetic justice?
Why would the Nationals trade Eric Fedde for Verlander? That’s ridiculous. Fedde might be as good as Verlander right now and he’ll be the Nats 5th starter as soon as he’s stretched out. He could even start for them in 5 days after that Cleveland Steamer turned in by Edwin Jackson last night. If Strasburg is hurt–it doesn’t look like he is–then by all means go get Verlander, but the Nats can get him August on a waiver claim for probably nothing.
Fedde is a fine prospect and all but there’s no way on god’s green earth that he’s a better starter than Verlander right now, and highly doubtful for next year too. It’s not like his results in AA and AAA have been overwhelming and the scouting report is that he only has two pitches worth a damn.
I think a few commenters are missing the point. It may be CHEAPER to acquire Verlander now than it would be in August. There is a great chance that he floats through the waiver process without anyone putting in a claim on him. If Detroit thinks that is likely, they may be willing to pay down $20M to get a 10-20 organizationally ranked prospect back. And if you are the Nats, saving $20M and giving up your number #15 prospect is much better than just absorbing all of Verlander’s contract.
It also makes it much easier to strike a multi-player deal. Tigers can bundle Wilson and Verlander, eliminate the pay down and extract a couple useful prospects. From a PR perspective, that makes moving Verlander more palpable. Much harder to do something like this after the end of this month.
The premise of the article is that Lance Lynn (or Clayton Richard or Edinson Volquez) isn’t much of an upgrade over Roark and Gonzalez. This is true (actually, none of them are any sort of upgrade). But neither is the 2017 version of Justin Verlander.
They could theoretically trade for Lance Lynn, or Clayton Richard, or Edinson Volquez, and give up an FV40-45 prospect just as they would in the Verlander deal without taking on the insane contract, and probably get the same performance. Why the Nationals would want to trade for Verlander is pretty unclear, save for name recognition.
I’m going to object here. I’m no Cards fan, but I think lumping Lance Lynn in with Clayton Richard and Edinson Volquez is unfair to Lynn. I cannot imagine St. Louis trading Lynn for one 40-45 FV prospect, as you have intimated.
Well, Lance Lynn is projected for about the same rest of season outcomes as Clayton Richard and Edinson Volquez, and has slightly worse performance this year.
Honest question for those more in the know about the Nat’s financial situation than I am. Why is it that everyone assumes their ability to run a big payroll is non-existent? Comments here suggest that Lerner would never agree to take on all of Verlander’s contract, and the general consensus is that the Nats will lack the ability to give out the $400 million+ deal Harper will command after the 2018 season. But Lerner is wealthy, even by MLB owner standards and could clearly bankroll a new Harper contract. Is Lerner just notoriously cheap (he doesn’t seem to get run down in the baseball media like Angelos/Loria/other known cheapskates do) or is this just about the Nats v. Orioles MASN contract situation?
I can’t speak for the Nats, but I would imagine there are very few franchises willing to take that contract, period. It’s $28M per year for two more years, for someone whose prognosis going forward isn’t great.
The Lerners are selectively spendy. They vetoed very reasonable moves for Robertson and Holland over financial considerations, but made Scherzer and Soriano. The key? Scott Boras, who has a very close and direct relationship with the Lerners. Verlander is not a Boras client, but Harper of course is – which is why I think most people are vastly underrating the odds of a Harper deal with the Nats. They might be cheap at the margins but if the Lerners want – and Harper wants to stay – they could easily offer the biggest contract.
I’ve said this before, but I am convinced that the Lerners are going to give Harper a $500 million dollar deal with so much money deferred that Harper will draw a check until he’s 50. Nothing like moral hazard when you’re really old, really rich, and want a championship.
I think if they are deferring money until Harper is 50, it will be way more than $500 million. If Harper just wants to get the most present-value cash (no opt outs, longest term), he’s signing for something like 15 years and probably over $500 million in NPV. I really hope he does that just to see how ridiculously large of a number it would be.
Pretty big disparities between what Fangraphs and Baseball Reference think regarding some of the statements. BRef Lance Lynn WAR = 2.5. Roark WAR = .1. Baseball reference does not think that they have been anywhere close to each other this season. Now lets try fangraphs. Lynn War= 0.9. Roark WAR = 1.5. So Bref thinks Lynn has been worth 25x more WAR than Roark. Fangraphs thinks Roark has been 1.7x more WAR than Lynn.
Pretty massive difference. I get it that Fangraphs bases all their numbers off of what they would expect to have happened, rather than what did, but sometimes when making statements like that I think people should stop and look at other reference points.
The Cubs will trade for Verlander. They have plenty of room relative to the luxury tax. They paid John Lackey $17 and $ 16 million for his 37 and 38 year old seasons. They would pay $20M each for Verlander’s 35 and 36 year old seasons. The Tigers would have to eat $8M for each year. The Cubs and Tigers would have to split the $22M option year that Verlander would want vested in exchange for his no trade waiver. Further, the Cubs want a package of players that align with what the Tigers have available; Justin Wilson, Alex Avila and Verlander. The Cubs can offer a package of prospects that appear in the just released Katoh 100 Jamier Candelario, Victor Caratini, Mark Zagunis and Justin Grimm off of the big league roster. There would also be a couple of low minors players tossed in.