Recent comments on Talk Nats were spot on with the reasons that Dusty Baker was so successful as a regular season manager. The month of April wasn’t for finding your footing, it was for winning games by putting your best foot forward. Spring Training is your proving grounds after your offseason that added quality over what did not fit. Not everything goes by plan, and we know that — but having a sound plan in place is the key.
“Right now, [a player] has to fit in — where he get in … This isn’t a try-out camp. This is try to play the best team overall to win the game …”
— ex-Nats’ manager Dusty Baker said in 2016
Baker’s words, ‘this isn’t a try-out camp’ refers to that quote from when Baker was the Washington Nationals manager in 2016, signifying his belief that the Major Leagues are not a place for players to simply try-out and take a starter’s spot, but rather a level where only the best, ready-to-contribute players, should be on the field, and focused on winning games immediately; essentially saying that Spring Training and the minor leagues are where players should be evaluated for readiness, not during the regular season, and the best 26 players should go North.
Key points about the quote:
- Meaning: Baker is emphasizing that when making lineup and rotation decisions, he prioritizes players who can win games right now, not those who might be potential future stars still needing development time or players who didn’t earn their spot.
- Context: This phrase is often associated with Baker’s management style, where he is known for trusting veteran players and relying on proven performance over potential. He also said this while his team was a contender — not in a rebuild.
- Flaws: Sometimes you do not have a better player than the one you are forced to play. Not every manager has a star to cover each position. This brought controversy during the 2016 NLDS when Baker made a disparaging comment about his starting shortstop, Danny Espinosa. That forced the Nats to trade Espinosa after the NLDS.
- Criticisms: Some might argue that Baker’s approach could sometimes limit opportunities for young players who might be ready to contribute at the Major League level.
One reason that Baker was a winner was because he wasn’t going to allow a player to be in his lineup if he couldn’t play the position well enough defensively — or for that matter, offensively, because we all remember how he threw Espinosa under the bus in an interview during the 2016 NLDS. “Who else do I have?” said Baker, certainly frustrated as was evident in his tone. “That’s my answer. I mean, you can give me somebody better, then I can play somebody instead of him.”
Accountability should start at the top from the owner’s office down. Promises made to players must have a codicil attached, that can change a promise if the player does not fulfill his expectations. Some of the signings come with a quid pro quo that players sign with handshakes that they will get a certain spot. Why is this being mentioned? General Manager Mike Rizzo made it clear that he signed free agent Michael Soroka to a $9 million deal as a starting pitcher — and not as a relief pitcher where he found his success in the 2024 season. The question is, was the promise a blanket promise with no date of expiry?
You look at Soroka’s career that started with a magical 2019 season as a rookie All-Star and runner-up in the Rookie of the Year. Then persistent achilles injuries led to four wasted years until the White Sox received him as a throw-in as part of a trade. Last season, Soroka was unplayable as a starter going 0-5 with a 6.39 ERA and a 1.512 WHIP. But after being demoted to the bullpen, the right-handed pitcher found success as a reliever going 2.75 on his ERA with an improved 1.222 WHIP. Rumors surfaced that the White Sox put restrictions on pitches that Soroka could throw as a starter. Soroka’s revelation was that he could take what he accomplished as a reliever and translate that to being a successful starter — and Rizzo signed him based on that hope in a one-year deal with the promise he would be a starter.
Contending teams with large budgets have the luxury of signing a player like Soroka as a depth piece. In 2016, Baker might have had Soroka as his A.J. Cole or Mat Latos type of player, and he knew quickly that Latos wasn’t the answer. Or you get a better version like Baker had with José Urquidy in 2023. I think Baker would go with his best five starters and that could be: 1. MacKenzie Gore 2. Jake Irvin 3. DJ Herz 4. Mitchell Parker 5. Trevor Williams. Could. Not guaranteed. Soroka could step up and be that ace that he was before those injuries. Sure, but based on 2024 results, that would be his Top-5. When Baker needed a sixth starter, Soroka would be his guy. Again, maybe Soroka is his best starter. We will see.
To borrow a line from former-Nats All-Star, Daniel Murphy, “Do you go to FanGraphs at all?” If you did, you will see what each one of those Nats pitchers put up as starters last year, and were at least 1.7 WAR. Remember that Herz and Parker came up mid-season and still put up WARs of 2.4 and 1.7 respectively. And Soroka put up –0.5 as a starter. Yes, negative per FanGraphs.
Where is the upside for the Washington Nationals for a one-and-done player? You are giving Soroka this time as his proving grounds for a brighter future for himself. A one-season test. There is no “I” in “TEAM” as we know.
Here is the obvious upside for the Nationals in this deal:
- Soroka pitches well and wins games for the Nationals -and-
- He is traded before the July trade deadline -or-
- The team retains him for the full season because the Nats are contending, and then they tag him with a qualifying offer (Q.O.), which was valued at $21.05 million last year — and if Soroka declined that, and met all contract thresholds, the Nationals would receive a draft compensatory pick after Competitive Balance Round B after the 2nd round -or-
- The team wants to keep Soroka and extends his contract.
Let’s face it, there isn’t a lot of risk in this one year deal unless you believe Rizzo could have spent that same $9 million towards better acquisitions. The Soroka money committed nearly 20 percent of the team’s budget over the offseason to one player. The best case is Soroka leads this Nats’ team on a miraculous run. Short of that, the next best outcome is this becomes a good 4-month deal with a top prospect return from a trade at the July deadline. The Q.O. route as we saw recently gave the Red Sox pick No. 75 when they QO’d Nick Pivetta, and he signed elsewhere. Unfortunately, the Nats don’t get the same benefits as the wealthier Orioles who received the No. 29 and No. 30 draft picks this year based on the faulty CBA rules that gave them premium draft compensation picks when Corbin Burnes and Anthony Santander signed elsewhere.
Now for the downside in this is:
- Soroka pitches poorly as a starter and loses games for the Nationals -and-
- He stays in the starting rotation -or-
- The team moves him to the bullpen, and he doesn’t pitch well -and-
- The team gets no trade or QO compensation for him, and Soroka goes the DFA or free agent route.
That is the total bust scenario and you hope that Rizzo’s group scouted Soroka well enough to at least the point where a bullpen stint is a favorable fallback position.
What the Nats should do:
- Use Spring Training as the try-out to put together the best 26-man roster to go North -and-
- Make the determination as to whether Soroka is a starter or a reliever -and-
- Maximize his value by putting the player in his best situation to succeed for himself and his team. By doing that, see the section above on the “upside for the Nationals.”
I rest my case.
