"The Nats 2024 was a stop gap year in relief where they brought in some older guys they never meant to keep and traded out some assets at the end of the year. Outside of Kyle Finnegan and Jose Ferrer there wasn't much of a plan. They signed a weaker set of guys in 2025 and hoped for the best. It didn't happen. The Nats had arguably the worst relief pitching in basebal in 2025."
"Presumed Plan : Clayton Beeter and pray for rain? If there's a place where "plan" is going to far, it's the bullpen where the Nats are going with a bunch of untested arms because why sign anyone? It doesn't matter! <insane laughter as fans go mad> Reasoning behind Presumed Plan : It's basically a given that the place you try to save money is in the pen. You don't know how much you will use them. Guys can have weirdly good performances out of nowhere."
"But it does seem clear that money isn't going to be spent so why assume it would be spent here? My Take : Jesus Christ this could be bad. They were the worst last year and right now they are putting no effort into making it better. From the comments some of you seemed resigned to a terrible team to the point where you are like \"signing anyone would actually be a mistake!\" Stop that."
The Nationals used 2024 as a stopgap, signing older relievers and trading assets late while retaining few long-term bullpen pieces. Only Kyle Finnegan and Jose Ferrer emerged as reliable relievers. The 2025 free-agent class was weaker and the bullpen performed poorly, producing arguably the worst relief pitching in baseball. Management appears to be relying on untested arms and cost-cutting in the pen instead of adding proven bullpen help. Saving money in relief is risky because performances are unpredictable, but the current approach has produced clear negative results. Targeted low-cost additions could improve competitiveness without blocking prospects.
Read at Natsbaseball
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]