As our
rumor mill has shown, one of the big storylines of the ongoing MLB Winter Meetings is which team might be willing to not merely give top free agent pitcher
Cliff Lee the most cash -- it's who might give him the most security. We're talking years. Some rumors have the
Washington Nationals as a team that might be willing to go as far as seven years in a deal. Given the Nats' aggressiveness in the market thus far, and the significant length of the deal they handed
Jayson Werth, as a projection excercise, we decided to project how Lee might fit in D.C. longterm.
After all, given the amount of money being discussed, it's a near-certainty that teams contending for Lee's services are considering their own projections.
What did we find?
While the Nationals may have
been rash in giving Jayson Werth so much money over so many years, they're doing the right thing in following up by exploring Lee.
For one, half-measures rarely make much sense, and after giving a big contract to Werth, the Nats have to be committed to putting a good team on the field while Werth is at his best. With Strasburg out until 2012 (and Zimmermann not far removed from major surgery of his own) and none of their other starters as sure bets to perform, the starting rotation is one of the team's biggest hurdles to getting the most out of the Werth signing. Secondly, Lee is easily the best pitcher available and if you have to overpay, adding a potential Cy Young winner to a shaky rotation is a good place. Here's a projection:
[h4]The Long Run[/h4]
Seven years of Cliff Lee might not be a bad investment after all. Here's a projection.
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2011 | 16 | 7 | 3.01 | 30 | 30 | 215.1 | 204 | 72 | 15 | 29 | 179 | 136 |
| 2012 | 15 | 7 | 3.08 | 28 | 28 | 204.2 | 196 | 70 | 15 | 28 | 165 | 133 |
| 2013 | 14 | 7 | 3.21 | 27 | 27 | 196.0 | 190 | 70 | 15 | 27 | 153 | 127 |
| 2014 | 13 | 6 | 3.17 | 26 | 26 | 184.1 | 179 | 65 | 14 | 25 | 144 | 129 |
| 2015 | 12 | 6 | 3.29 | 23 | 23 | 167.0 | 164 | 61 | 14 | 24 | 129 | 124 |
| 2016 | 10 | 6 | 3.47 | 21 | 21 | 147.2 | 149 | 57 | 13 | 21 | 113 | 118 |
| 2017 | 9 | 6 | 3.63 | 18 | 18 | 129.0 | 133 | 52 | 12 | 19 | 97 | 113 |
[th=""]Year[/th][th=""]W[/th][th=""]L[/th][th=""]ERA[/th][th=""]G[/th][th=""]GS[/th][th=""]IP[/th][th=""]H[/th][th=""]ER[/th][th=""]HR[/th][th=""]BB[/th][th=""]SO[/th][th=""]ERA+[/th]
With these numbers (note: as projected by ZiPS for Lee at Nationals Park), the team should be very satisfied with a Lee signing. There's obviously risk on the back end as seen in those inning totals, but to get a pitcher the quality of Lee in the free agent market, that's the trade-off you have to make.
While the feeling here is still that the Nats would have been better served by keeping Dunn, signing Lee, and going after
Jon Garland (and maybe bringing in a quality role player like
Matt Diaz with the leftover Werth savings), signing Lee is the right follow-up move for GM Mike Rizzo.
