It’s been rumored all off-season, and now a few weeks before Pitchers and Catchers report, our biggest trade asset MacKenzie Gore has been traded. Announced last night, the Nats moved Gore to Texas for a package of 5 prospects.
Here’s a quick look at those 5 prospects, with their new Nats system rank and other pertinent information:
- shortstop Gavin Fien; 2025 1st rounder, Age 18. Our new #5 prospect (was Texas’ #2 prospect)
- right-hander Alejandro Rosario; 2023 college 5th rounder, Age 24, AA last year, new #11 prospect
- infielder Devin Fitz-Gerald: 2025 prep 5th rounder but over-slot bonus, age 20, new #12 prospect
- outfielder Yeremy Cabrera: 2022 IFA, just 20, our new #17 prospect
- first baseman/outfielder Abimelec Ortiz; 2021 NDFA, Age 3, on 40-man, hit AAA last year, new #24
First glance? I’m sorry, but is this all we could get? One 18yr old 1st rounder, two 20yr olds in low-A, a AA starter who missed all of 2025 AND just had TJ so he’s missing all of 2026 too, and a AAA utility guy? This is a major swing from a risk perspective, and the lack of additional higher-regarded prospects give me pause. The discovery (post publishing) that the 2nd best prospect is out for the entire 2026 season is even more demoralizing here.
I’m really disappointed with this return. We didn’t even get Texas’ best prospect in this deal. Maybe that’s me overvaluing Gore. On the one hand, Gore’s career numbers put him at a 98 ERA+. But at the same time, we’ve seen him be completely dominant for stretches. He’s valuable because he’s being paid a pittance for what he provides as a mid-rotation starter ($2.8M in first year Arb this year, $5.6M this year) and for 2 more years of control. He’s an innings eater who throws mid-90s from the left side; that’s worth a ton of the FA market and should have been worth more in trade.
When he didn’t go in the Winter Meetings, I thought the team should hold on to him until the Trade Deadline, when desperate teams who had lost starters to injury would be overpaying for mid-level starters. I was wrong; the new FO pulled the trigger on a deal they liked. I sense this was an underpay by Texas, but clearly the GM sees these younger guys and liked the deal.
An additional wrinkle: we’ve spoken before about the logjam of young shortstops projected to play in Fredericksburg in 2026 … well we just added two more guys who need playing time. We now add Fien and Fitz-Gerald to Willis, Feliz, Dickerson, and Mota, all of whom are likely projected to Low-A and who predominantly play SS.
What does this mean for the franchise? Insiders and those in the knew already knew this, but the signals have been strong that we’re on our way to bottoming out once again. My “casual Nats fan” pinged me last night with an immediate reaction to this trade, asking why we were getting rid of our best pitcher and I had to break it to him; we’re going to be bad for a while, so buckle up. This latter type of fan is the one who the Nats eventually will need to come back, to buy tickets, to bring the family for weekend games … but I sense a move like this, one which gets rid of one of the few players whose names they even know, is going to turn people off for a while.
I’m always excited to get more prospects into the system, as a prospect-heavy analysis site. Don’t get me wrong; can’t wait to do the spreadsheet work and try to noodle where I think these players will fit in my eventual top-100+ ranking that i’ll publish before the season starts. But I hate trading away assets and not getting enough in return, which I believe happened here.
What do you think? Am I over-valuing Gore? Did we get appropriate return here? Should we have waited til the Trade deadline 2026?
The general consensus on the InterNats is (of course) that the Nats sold low, are incompetent, etc., etc.. The industry consensus that I’ve seen so far varies from solid return/Toboni held out for his price and the Rangers came around (Longenhagen at FG) to thinking that the Rangers paid too much (Steve Phillips on MLB Radio). His take is because he has concerns about Gore.
I expect industry takes to be dismissed unless they conclude that Nats “lost” the trade.
Me? I hope that it works. I don’t think that I have the scouting acumen to feel like a second guess from me would be worth much.
John C.
23 Jan 26 at 1:39 pm
Although I think that it’s absolutely fair to say that the targeted return (and Toboni’s comments after the trade) remove any lingering doubt about the contention window being pushed back.
John C.
23 Jan 26 at 1:43 pm
I don’t like that the 2nd best player in the deal just had TJ a couple weeks ago. I don’t like that the leading player is an 18yr old, no matter how good he was for U18 Team USA. That really colors the deal for me.
Todd Boss
23 Jan 26 at 2:10 pm
I don’t like bulk deals in general. I’d have much rather gotten one FV60 or 2 FV50s as the main return. And I’d have certainly kept Gore if this was the best offer available. I like watching dominant starting pitchers, even if they’re inconsistent, and Gore’s starts were one of the few aspects of the current ML team that I could get excited about.
John does have a good point – the pundits I’ve seen have called the return pretty much fair. My take is closer to the Baseball Trade Value model – which has it as a 50% overpay by the Nats. But it’s done now. I’ll make sure to check the Harrisburg schedule in April 2027 to catch Rosario’s triumphant return.
You know, one way to look at it is that this is a big swing for Toboni’s new dev guys. This group craps out, and it looks really really bad. But if they succeed in turning this group into one 3 WAR player and one 2 WAR player, they’ll have every reason shove it in my face and Todd’s face and all of us doubters.
SMS
23 Jan 26 at 3:10 pm
@SMS: this kind of goes towards a question I mentioned in the article … maybe we’re all overvaluing just how good MacKenzie Gore is?
The Athletic gave both sides Bs and B+s for the trade. CBS same; gave both sides a “B.” Yahoo An A and a B. The only place that’s really panning the deal is that Trade Value site, that says the rangers “grossly underpaid.”
Todd Boss
23 Jan 26 at 3:47 pm
@Todd – that’s my conclusion too, but I don’t really see it.
Forget dreaming on Gore becoming an ace, the projection systems already have him as a 2.7 WAR player. Two years of that for ~$18M total is about $35M of surplus value, even with the low-end $8M/WAR estimate. And then figure the return is one 1 F45+, 2 FV45s, 1 FV40+ and 1 FV40. Using FG’s average surplus value estimates by FV grade, that only adds up to $24M.
So I don’t know why the pundit consensus is what it is – I doubt many folks think Gore’s on the decline (though maybe that Steve Phillips does).
Actually one thought is this – if 2027 is washed out, then you’re only getting one year of Gore’s surplus value. I haven’t seen that effect so clearly with other trades this offseason, but this trade does begin to make sense to me in those terms.
SMS
23 Jan 26 at 4:26 pm
by all accounts Gore has been shopped around since the offseason began and I doubt Texas was one of the first places Toboni tried. if there was a better return they would have gotten it and if not the decision becomes take this or keep Gore. there are obvious risks with the second scenario.
I’ve read positive scouting reports on Fien and Fitz-Gerald.
now the challenge will be to get them properly placed in the system to allow for adequate playing time for all.
FredMD
23 Jan 26 at 6:48 pm
Rumors going around that Jacob Young is also getting interest (FWIW – if he is, and we can get serviceable arms / bats back, I’d do it, as much as I love cheering for the little guy)…
And also apparently we’ve turned down offers from SF for CJ as well….
Kirkie
24 Jan 26 at 5:22 am
Jacob Young absolutely should get moved. This is exactly how we got Henry Ford: a good player blocked by a better player. We have too many OFs for not enough spots and Young is the obvious one to go.
CJ Abrahms needs to go as well; we’re not going to be competitive before he’s a FA, so move him now. I’d say move Ruiz as well to let Ford start free and clear, but he’s probably worthless on the open market right now.
Todd Boss
24 Jan 26 at 11:13 am
Scrolling around the natmosphere, reportedly Toboni said on Grant Paulsen’s show that the reason for the delay in Rosario’s TJS was he had a small surgical procedure first. While the precise surgery wasn’t mentioned (HIPAA, I’d think), if the “small” is fair characterization, then hopefully the eventual TJS is pretty routine for TJS. Longenhagen is very high on the Rosario part of the deal and thinks he has the highest upside (he admits he’s down on Fien relative to most other evaluators). We had Cavalli just return to the majors pretty effectively after a 2 year post-TJS layoff, so hopefully Rosario goes routinely here on out. Closer to Cavalli than Aldo Ramirez.
JCA
24 Jan 26 at 11:43 am
I’m with Todd on JY, though I’d also accept a some other configurations. Like trading Lile, or using Wood and/or Lile to cover most of the DH. I’d even be up for trading Crews if he were valued as an above average regular or an FV60 prospect, though I highly doubt they’d get any offers for him at that level.
I’d also be looking to trade 1 or 2 of Hassell, Franklin, and Pinckney and would be very happy to ship Petersen, Vaqeuro or this new kid Cabrera if anyone is offering fair value for them.
The only non-teenage OFs I want to keep are (1) as many of Wood, Lile, Crews and Young who can get serious ML playing time and (2) enough of Hassell, Franklin and Pinckney to have 5 cromulent OFs on the depth chart. if that’s all four of the first and one of the second, fine. If it’s 3 and 2, fine. I’d let the trade market decide our best course of action.
SMS
24 Jan 26 at 12:17 pm
Oh and one more thing – I think those trades would make sense even in the middle of a competitive window, but it’s even more imperative that a team in the Nats’ situation not let value wither on the vine by holding on to overqualified depth.
SMS
24 Jan 26 at 12:24 pm
A bunch of people jumped on me for suggesting we should trade Gore this summer. Here’s another: why are we keeping Wood around at this point?
I had thought our window with some reasonable spending on free agents in from 25-27 to be 2028. But these moves contradict that. The best case scenario for most of these guys we just acquired REACHING the majors is 2028. They won’t be meaningful contributors (if they reach at all) until 2029 or later.
Among our other prospects, Ford and Perales are ready now or very soon. But Susana’s arrival time is 2027/28. Sykora 2028. Willits is looking at an arrival around 2028. Which again suggests this team is being sequenced to be competitive AFTER 2028, when the cavalry really begins to arrive.
Which brings me back to Wood. He’s under control through 2030, which gives a narrow overlap between this competitive Nats team in like 2029/2030.
I think most people still buy into the hype that made him a top 5 prospect in the game, and look like a fringe MVP candidate through the first half of 2025. That has IMMENSE trade value. If we can add some elite prospects for him, whose arrival time coincides better with this hypothetical window, shouldn’t we trade him? There’s a risk he returns in 2026 looking like the 2025 2nd half version of himself, which would cause his value to drop (albeit not completely).
But this 2026 Nats team looks TERRIBLE. Our rotation might be an all-time worst. We’re going to lose 100 games. Is that really the best way to showcase one possible super-star among a bunch of misfit toys? Why not just really fully lean into this re-rebuild and trade Wood too along with Abrams and Crews, while we’re at it, and build this “monster” Toboni seems to be constructing for 2029 or so?
Will
24 Jan 26 at 2:48 pm
I was surprised at the value BTV put on Jacob Young, higher than I thought. I still doubt he alone brings significant prospects. like CJ there is less urgency in moving him.
he was certainly a main attraction when MLB network ran their defensive plays of the year.
FredMD
25 Jan 26 at 9:11 am
I think we have the tendency to both overrate and underrate Young at the same time.
Young was only two seasons ago worth 2.7 WAR, which is the expected outcome of a 55 prospect, which is a consensus top 100 prospect.
If a tweak to his swing could re-unlock the kind of offensive performance he put up between 2023 and 2024, he’s an IMMENSELY valuable player. If he’s “only” his 2025 self, and he never improves, he’s still a fantastic 4th outfielder, and we just saw how an above average 4th outfielder in Alex Call netted us two 45 FV prospects, so that alone is also pretty valuable!
Will
25 Jan 26 at 11:49 am
for those interested K Law has Willits, Fien and King in his top 100.
FredMD
26 Jan 26 at 8:12 am
Will, I was with you last July (https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=19069) when you suggested trading Gore. It sounded radical at the time, and fans clearly weren’t ready for it, but in hindsight you were right. The Nats would have gotten a far better return before his regression and while he still had three postseasons of control.
Trading Wood now is even more radical and would be even more unpopular, but the logic is similar. The next two years are essentially a write-off. Any value from good players on the roster is going to waste, and shifting that value into the long term makes sense. That applies to Wood just as much as anyone else.
There’s also real risk here. Wood has tremendous talent, but last year’s second half showed he’s not a guaranteed superstar. Moving him now hedges against that uncertainty and could bring back a massive return while his value is at its peak.
Fans would hate it, and of course there are no guarantees with prospects. A trade only makes sense if the return is overwhelming and centered on young players. But the Nats should at least be open to serious offers rather than treating Wood as untouchable.
Stepping back, Nats fans might be happier accepting where this team is right now. This is a 96-loss roster with a long road ahead. But baseball can be fun, even beautiful, even when your team is losing. Whatever the front office decides, my suggestion is: enjoy the ride.
Bruce
26 Jan 26 at 9:31 am
Trading Wood? Geez Louise, people. He’s not even arb-eligible for two more seasons and is under team control thorugh 2030. Right now he’s a young potential star, but he’s not proven or consistent yet. They are FAR better served by coaching him up to his full potential and making any further decisions about trading him based on how he matures.
As for “fans would hate it” – that’s true. And I am given to understand that fans are important for what is, at its core, an entertainment business. Telling fans to “close our eyes and think of England” is not a viable marketing strategy.
TL;DR: as Toboni said when asked about Abrams, they’re not shopping him. You always take a call, but the return would have to be truly overwhelming to even continue the discussion.
John C.
26 Jan 26 at 12:46 pm
Here’s your guide for trading players.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A7XlAdd094f4mgiYP1Hs3FFsKiuS5KWQRK0eiMP_V5M/edit?gid=1520401900#gid=1520401900
Anyone who doesn’t even hit Arbitration until 2027 or 2028 isn’t someone we should be looking to move. Anyone else? Move ’em if you can. For us now that’s a short list:
– Trevor Williams: FA after this year, maybe he rebounds and is worth a low-end prospect at the trade deadline
– Luis Garcia: i think the word may be out on him; he’s awful even at 2B, doesn’t hit enough for 1B/DH
– Foster Griffin: good trade bait mid-season if he pans out
– Keilbert Ruiz: signed through 2030, probably isn’t going anywhere, ever
– CJ Abrams: our best remaining trade chip
– Josiah Grey: he’s getting paid almost nothing and was pretty darn good in 2023; can he get back there? If he pitches like an All Star he could be really interesting at the trade deadline
– Cade Cavalli: blew two full pre-arb years on the MLB DL, now he’s arb eligible with a grand total of 53 career innings. Same argument as Grey; he’s not going to be here by the time we’re good again.
Todd Boss
26 Jan 26 at 5:02 pm
John — I’m hopeful you’re right that better coaching will help Wood reach his ceiling, and that his value will rise accordingly. But there’s also a real possibility it doesn’t play out that way, and his trade value stagnates or declines. At this point, we just don’t know.
I understand the argument about years of control. But if Toboni is effectively writing off the next two seasons—and that seems like a defensible approach—then Wood’s value is inherently higher to a team trying to win now than to the Nationals. A contender gets the full benefit of those early, inexpensive years; Washington doesn’t. That’s exactly the kind of situation where a trade can be mutually beneficial. And if no one offers that kind of return, then of course the Nats should hold.
On the fan side, the next couple of years are likely to be rough regardless of whether they move popular players. Attendance will dip, sure, but the Lerners’ financial capacity isn’t going to be meaningfully constrained by a temporary revenue drop. The real question is whether they’ll reinvest once the core is in place, not whether they can.
Bruce
26 Jan 26 at 5:59 pm
If you’re advocating trading Wood, then why stop there? Lets trade Crews too under the same misguided theory. Lets trade Willits while we’re at it! What’s the point of having ANY young players of value when we can just trade them to get even MORE young players of value???
Nobody trades pre-arb super stars. Nobody. Their product vs salary is the absolute gold standard of what teams look for, in order to allow themselves the ability to buy veteran wins on the FA market to make a winning team.
Lets take our 2012 team. We went from respectable to 98 wins in a jiffy. Here were our top 10 WAR contributors that year and where they were in terms of their contract status:
– Zimmermann: Arb1 $2.3M
– Harper: Rookie but on a now-banned MLB deal signed at drafting for $1.75M
– Gio Gonzalez: arb2 $3.3M
– LaRoche: $8M on a 1year with option FA contract
– Zimmerman: $12M playing in what would have been his walk year
– Strasburg; 2nd year player but on now-banned MLB deal worth $4.875M
– Desmond: pre-arb
– Espinosa: pre-arb
– Jackson 1yr $11M
– Stammen: pre-arb.
When you have a ton of contribution from pre-arb and early-arb players, it lets you spend money on the likes of Werth, jackson, laRoche to fill in the gaps and turn an 86 win team into a 98 win team. Just look at how much production that team had from guys who were in years 0-3.
Clearly the Nats aren’t where we were in 2012. Four of our 2012 starters pitched at a 118 ERA+ figure or better and we had 5-6 guys in the bullpen who were lights out. Maybe we wait out our budding pitching prospects Sykora, Susana, Clemmey and the like, then when they’re ready to go we augment with a couple of strategic bats/starters once again and we’re back in action.
Todd Boss
27 Jan 26 at 10:09 am
Bruce is just following the logic to its conclusion. If the only thing that matters is maximizing championship likelihood per dollar spent, a team in the Nat’s situation should be looking to trade pretty much every expiring asset they can – and every player burning ML service time is certainly an expiring asset.
Wood is probably too valuable right now for any team to be able to stomach a fair offer, but Crews absolutely would be less likely to contribute to a Nationals’ WS win than, say, Jesus Made or JJ Wetherholt.
But, at least to me, this doesn’t at all sound like a desirable course of action and, in fact, is instead a reductio ad absurdam refutation for that underlying logic that entirely discounts the fan experience on a day to day basis.
It’s more fun to watch better baseball. And that’s even true if you’re comparing a 65 win team and a 75 win team, neither of whom have any chance of winning the world series.
So, sure, listen to offers on anyone and, if some other team really makes it worthwhile, no one is untouchable. But jesus christ, leave us something to enjoy watching.
SMS
27 Jan 26 at 11:30 am
“Clearly the Nats aren’t where we were in 2012. Four of our 2012 starters pitched at a 118 ERA+ figure or better and we had 5-6 guys in the bullpen who were lights out. Maybe we wait out our budding pitching prospects Sykora, Susana, Clemmey and the like, then when they’re ready to go we augment with a couple of strategic bats/starters once again and we’re back in action.”
But that’s the point, Todd. Sykora, Susana and Clemmey are slated to ARRIVE in the majors in 2027 at the earliest (Sykora being at least a year behind the other two), and shouldn’t be expected to be putting up 118 ERA+ until 2028 or 2029 (same timeline as Willits, and all the guys we just acquired for Gore, Dickerson, Feliz, Harmon, James, etc., i.e. 10 of our top 15 prospects). It’s why I believe our competitive window is now looking like 2029. So if we wait until Sykora, Susana and Clemmey are ready, we’ll have almost exhausted Wood’s team control.
SMS, I take no joy from this either. And it doesn’t have to be this way! The Nats could maintain a league average payroll, and be a decent team (maybe even a good one, if things broke right). But we’re currently $80m below league payroll, and everything Toboni has said and done demonstrates he does not have the approval and/or the desire to get our payroll anywhere close to league average, and is instead re-shaping the team to be competitive in 3-4 years. Unfortunately, that timeline did not sync with Gore’s, so he’s gone. But it also doesn’t sync with Wood’s. (It’s also a foregone conclusion Abrams will be traded, Toboni just hasn’t gotten an offer he likes enough yet.) There’s a way to change that: sign him to an extension. But Wood’s agent is Boras, so that’s highly unlikely. It’s doubly unlikely if the vision you get to sell to Wood is: “We’re going to lose 100 games for the next 3 years”. So how long do you let his value depreciate? Do you wait until he has a historically bad 2nd half and trade him for five 19 year olds still in A ball? Or do you trade him when he could net you a Soto-esque return, and acquire prospects who will better sync with this hypothetical competitive window opening in 2029?
Will
27 Jan 26 at 3:32 pm
@Will – One, I’m 100% with you on the payroll stuff. This team is terrible by choice and what’s being gained is not a future competitive window, but simply more money in the Lerners’ accounts. It’s a disgrace.
Two, if Wood actually could get the Soto package – something like 4 top 100 prospects, including 2 FV60s, I think I might make the trade too. I meant it that no one should be untouchable.
My problem is that I don’t like to hear other fans being all cynical and hardboiled and claiming that the only thing that matters is cumulative championship percentage, all so there’s no reason to complain about a terrible on-field product. Watching Wood is fun. Watching Soto was really fun. Sports don’t actually matter, and I’m only watching it because it’s fun. A team where Luis Garcia and Jake Irvin are the best players wouldn’t be fun.
SMS
27 Jan 26 at 5:26 pm
In the “is that all that they could get for Gore?” thread, I will note that both of the FG prospects In a chat today someone asked whether people had been overestimating what a Gore return would look like. Brendan Gawlowski’s reply:
“Are people disappointed? I thought the return was pretty good; Eric [Longenhagen] did too.” And linked to the article that Longenhagen wrote about the trade, titled “Cherry Blossom Seeds: Washington Eyes Rebirth with Five Prospect Haul in Gore Trade” https://blogs.fangraphs.com/cherry-blossom-seeds-washington-eyes-rebirth-with-five-prospect-haul-in-gore-trade/
John C.
27 Jan 26 at 6:47 pm
I meant to say that “both of the FG prospects folks liked the return that the Nats got.” Wish this page had an edit function, but oh, well.
John C.
27 Jan 26 at 6:48 pm
Todd/SMS — you’re obviously right that trading away quality players now will make the team substantially worse in the short term. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that’s a price worth paying to maximize long‑term success.
What’s not reasonable is to pretend the trade‑off doesn’t exist. If the Nats want to make winning a World Series their top priority, they need patience and a willingness to shift value into the future. Every year they keep a good player whose timeline doesn’t match the team’s, they make it harder to assemble a championship‑caliber core.
As a fan, I’m willing to accept a high short‑term cost if it strengthens the team’s future. It helps that I enjoy baseball even when the Nationals are losing—partly because the sport is unpredictable, and partly because I just love the aesthetics of the game. I realize not everyone feels that way. Fair enough.
But fans can adapt. Last July 1, when Will suggested trading Gore (https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=19069), Todd’s reaction was the same as many fans’: “no way.” By July 29, he was making the same argument himself ( https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=19152#comments). That shift isn’t hypocrisy—it’s what happens when people confront the team’s actual competitive timeline.
Bruce
27 Jan 26 at 6:53 pm
So the team claimed a SS and signed another to a minors deal. Looks like added smoke for a CJ trade soon. Otherwise that’s a lot of mouths to feed during Spring Training.
MG
29 Jan 26 at 8:36 am
SS logjam: I see (for now) Abrams as the starter, Nunez/Gasper as the infielder backups on the MLB roster, then Alcantara/Chang/Tena/Martinez/Lipscomb splitting time starting at 2B/SS/3B in AAA.
But, if Abrams heads out the door, I’m thinking Nunez starts at SS and they have a competition for that 2nd utility infielder with likely Gasper & Tena winning. but, we’ve still got some off-season to go.
Todd Boss
29 Jan 26 at 9:24 am
Couple other things of note: Keith Law just released his top 30 organizations… and we’re at #6. I havn’t seen anyone rank the Nats that high since a brief period in Summer 2024 when Wood/Crews/House were still in the minors.
Also, BA re-did their top 30s with IFAs and trade acquisitions and we’ve added 5 guys to the top 30 in their view. I may do a quick re-visit to talk about who’s slotted in and where.
Todd Boss
29 Jan 26 at 9:26 am